User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 166

lawsuit?
See. Comments thereon are welcomed. Collect (talk) 18:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know anything about this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:10, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It might be wise for you to learn about it, however. Collect (talk) 20:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Remind me to never use my real name. Anywhere. Not even on my driver's license. Coretheapple (talk) 18:13, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Its pretty helpful when your real name is as common as John Smith. ;-)--Mark Miller (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Seriously, I just realized that one editor I greatly respect is listed as a defendant. I am not a happy camper. Wikipedia is not listed as a defendant. Jimbo, if I were a defendant, apart from silently weeping, what are my alternatives? Will the Foundation help me? Coretheapple (talk) 18:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Huh, so I came across this page at BLPN a day or two ago. I took a look at the page, but the court cases looked like they were supported by strong sources (assuming the sources do in fact support the article-text) I've seen people bring up BLP in my editing, even when I was using peer-reviewed journals as sources, which I thought was silly.

I notice the lawsuit says stuff like that the defendants had "a state of mind arising from hatred or ill will" and seems to focus on what is said on the Talk page, rather than the actual article. I guess it could be a good or bad thing depending on if that is actually true. CorporateM (Talk) 19:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I guess this might explain why the WMF general counsel hasn't had a chance to respond to questions at the COI talk page. This lawsuit is very disturbing. Yes, California has a SLAPP suit statute but that is no panacea. One still must hire a lawyer, etc. etc. Well, there is the EFF I guess. Bah. Coretheapple (talk) 19:20, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * This seems to me to be an attack on Wikipedia by going after the shallow pockets SLAPP-style and letting the WMF off scot free since they have a lawyer and money. Assuming these are good faith editors who merely attempted to restore neutrality to a POV bio written by COI editors, my question is this: Does the Wikimedia Foundation have our backs or not? Carrite (talk) 19:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Good question. The WMF is protected by law, so that leaves editors vulnerable. Coretheapple (talk) 19:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Vulnerable" or "solely responsible for their own editing". I'm making no comment here about what the editors in this incident have done or about the quality of the case that's been brought. But I see no issue, in principle, with individual editors being responsible for their edits. This is a volunteer project. We are not employees of a corporation that will profit from our endeavours and from whom we are owed support. I think it is timely for editors to remember that when they make edits on this highly influential (in terms of mass audience) website, they have a responsibility, bigger than merely complying with WP policies, to get it right. The anonymity of the web encourages poor behaviour. I don't think we should enable that by saying Mama Wikimedia is going to give a blank cheque to protect editors. DeCausa (talk) 20:58, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think anybody is saying that WMF should be responsible for editors who intentionally "get it wrong." The question is whether the site-owning entity, with tens of millions of dollars in the bank, has an ethical obligation to come to the legal aid of "good faith editors who merely attempted to restore neutrality to a POV bio written by COI editors" assuming these are targets of a SLAPP-style legal attack. I am not saying this is necessarily the case here, I haven't studied the matter in depth, but a cursory glance indicates this may well be the situation. Carrite (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "Good faith" is a fine judgment sometimes. And what about when it's not "intentional", but is negligent? I believe the WMF have, in fact, provided legal support in the past. But I think that should be exceptional. It will have a malign effect on editing if editors feel they will be bailed out by WMF if they screw up. In what other area of life does one feel that we have the right to be protected from our actions in this way? I think sometimes compliance with WP policies and WP:NLT gives some editors the impression that they are exempt from Real World consequences. We are not, nor should be. DeCausa (talk) 21:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * If this is actually a SLAPP case, Wikimedia would be protecting public comment, not just these editors. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:05, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

One of the few things that comes to mind to me here is that this would make a great way for some California attorney to get some serious publicity for their pro bono work, and I can think that there might be quite a few very good and prominent attorneys willing to take it on for that reason alone. John Carter (talk) 20:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of Yank Barry before this, so I was doing some Googling this morning. It seems that Barry's claims have been questioned several times in the past, i.e.: here. The more interesting part of that article is the comments section. Seven of nine comments defend Barry or attack the story author. All seven by single purpose accounts that only made one comment, ever. I've found stories questioning Barry's claims of the number of "free meals" his ProVita company gave out in the late 90s, and of a charitable event cancelled after it was reported that it was less charity and more promotion of a business interest. All told, Barry comes off looking like someone who is rather zealous in his desire to control and pump up his image. Given his past, that certainly would lead him into conflict with Wikipedia's NPOV requirements.

What interests me about the suit itself is that, while it lists 31 statements as arguments (evidence?) of this "conspiracy" to "defame" Barry, most are simply opinion, and quite obviously so. The few examples that imply potentially false statements of fact are written in highly vague terms. i.e.: "(1994) Texas State Prison VitaPro scheme" - He was indicted, tried, convicted and exonerated in a bribery case related to VitaPro and the Texas State Prison System, so without a specific claim of what the article actually said, I couldn't even consider whether or not there was actual defamation there either. If this survives a possible anti-SLAPP challenge, I would expect that Barry will have to elaborate with specific statements that he considers to be offside.

Also, FWIW, Riddick Bowe tweeted about the case, so expect some press interest beyond "prnewschannel" to come of this. Resolute 20:54, 20 June 2014 (UTC)


 * There's absolutely *no* way that this suit will survive California's anti-SLAPP statute - it simply makes too many claims that are undefendable on their face. There's also pretty much zero question that Yank Barry will be found to be at least a limited person public figure in a broad enough sense to cover most if not all statements in the suit, which raises the bar for succeeding on a claim of defamation from negligence to actual malice - something that is *extraordinarily* hard to prove here, and something that barely ever succeeds even in cases with a hell of a lot more grounds.  Some lawsuits against Wikipedia editors have been exceptionally serious and needed active, well-financed legal defenses... this particular one won't survive even an initial motion to strike under California's anti-SLAPP statute.  That's not to say I don't think legal support should be arranged for the people involved, just that it's extraordinarily unlikely that this is really a cause for anyone to worry :) Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:07, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree that this is a SLAPP suit, but even if the defendants are able to get a quick resolution that way, there is still the time and financial inconvenience. That is in itself a cause for worry. Resolute 23:25, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd say that learning you are being sued for $10,000,000 is pretty much always going to be a legitimate cause for worry, regardless of whether you've done anything wrong or what the plaintiff's chances are. Formerip (talk) 23:29, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * California has a particularly strong anti-SLAPP statute, and a lot of groups that are more than happy to pursue anti-SLAPP suits without cost - if any of the people involved end up needing to be connected to one and haven't been directed their way yet, I'd be happy to help out if the WMF ends up wanting to not get involved - I literally live a couple blocks away from an organization dedicated to handling anti-SLAPPs, and can think of at least half a dozen other legal groups in my area that would be happy to jump at getting rid of this. California's statute rather conveniently also prevents discovery from occurring until the anti-SLAPP motion is resolved, and guarantees timely resolution as well as recovery of legal fees and court costs in most scenarios.  Obviously, getting sued is never a fun thing, but this will be resolved in pretty much no time with little time investment, no cost, and no effect other than the deserved public embarrassment of Yank Barry. Kevin Gorman (talk) 23:50, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Some homeowner and "umbrella" policies cover defamation suits. Coretheapple (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The only shred of evidence that will interest a court is one slightly unwise comment by an established editor that claims "we threaten his livelihood". In the context of the rest of the evidence this is unlikely to be a problem - it is clear that where we do threaten the livelihood of a subject, it is by factual reporting of an encyclopaedic nature, just as we have done with a number of fraudsters in the past. We do not even then have the purpose of putting an end to their criminal careers, though we may take some personal satisfaction.

Who is prepared to stand up and be counted is clear, and who folds and runs is also clear. Despite the quivering lips of some highly placed folk, the typical editor is very robust about defending the truth. And the community as a whole does not "threaten the livelihood" of its members, over on-wiki disputes, and views with disapproval those who do.

If this case does come to court, which is unlikely, I will seriously consider filing an amicus brief. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:53, 22 June 2014 (UTC).

Question about the 2009 italian wikipedia lawsuit
Has there been a final outcome for that, or is that still ongoing after 5 years? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gianfranco/Wikimedia_Italia_sued_for_20,000,000_%E2%82%AC

As the head of Wikimedia Foundation, what are your views on this? Since all the content is hosted in USA, does the litigation make any sense? Heikki Vanionpåå (talk) 12:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Last year, the WMF successfully got that case dismissed. In their press release, however, they appended
 * Note: While this decision represents important progress towards protecting hosting providers like the Wikimedia Foundation, it is equally important to remember that every individual is legally responsible for his or her actions both online and off. For your own protection, you should exercise caution and avoid contributing any content to the Wikimedia projects that may result in criminal or civil liability under the laws of the United States or any country that may claim jurisdiction over you. For more information, please see our Terms of Use and Legal Policies.
 * Which I read as saying the WMF will not in any way intervene in any lawsuits against Wikipedia editors and "John Does" one through fifty.  So much for WMF being remotely interested per that press release in any SLAPP case :(
 * The "legal policies" section referred to includes:
 * Example: An editor lives in Iran, where the local laws are more restrictive of political content than U.S. laws. Any edits on political content by the editor are at his or her own risk, even though the Foundation may disagree with the underlying laws.
 * The "terms of use" section:
 * Please keep in mind that the content we host is for general informational purposes only, so if you need expert advice for a particular question (such as medical, legal, or financial issues), you should seek the help of a licensed or qualified professional
 * IOW,  each and every editor named in any lawsuit is on his own to obtain paid legal counsel, and Wikipedia does not make any claims at all that it will not freely give out all personal information it may have about editors per those legal statements.  Unless they come to their senses, that is.   Collect (talk) 13:38, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe there's a little mistake: WMF won against Mr. Previti, who is another former MP of Berlusconi's party, but Wikimedia Italia is still before the court against Mr. Angelucci & Son. The case should currently be going towards an ending in the next weeks, but AFAIK it hasn't yet. --g (talk) 11:20, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

WMF plans for mathematics II
Dear Jimbo,

A few weeks ago I started a discussion here as a result of which you challenged the mathematics editor community — "What would math editors prefer today? I'm happy to help but it would be delicious if I had an NPOV summary of the current state of the art, how it compares with what we support, and some basic first step explanations of what the steps are to get from where we are to where we want to be, what help we might be able to engage from the broader math community, and what engineering costs we might expect to shoulder on our end."

As a result there has been a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics (at which we have tried to bring in views from other languages as well). I'm posting the summary here — I look forward to hearing your comments. Deltahedron (talk) 19:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Background
About 1% of Wikipedia's 4.5 million articles are assessed as being in "Mathematics and Logic". Probably a similar number are in theoretical physics and in computer science. So in about a hundred thousand articles, the ability to render mathematics is indispensible to the reader: the ability to write and edit mathematics is indispensible to the author and editor.

Currently the predominant mathematics markup system in all forms of document preparation is some flavour of LaTeX. It may be presumed that any serious mathematics content contributor will be thoroughly familiar with LaTeX. LaTeX is rendered on web pages in a variety of ways: currently Wikipedia uses two of the more popular methods, rendering formulae as PNG images and rendering dynamically using MathJax. There are deficiencies in the current implementation of each of these methods.

The stability and usefulness of current mathematics rendering is reduced by the following
 * Incremental development of reader and editor interfaces is apt to degrade the reader or editor experience without warning.
 * Major changes in editor interfaces, such as the introduction of VisualEditor and Flow, may be radically incompatible with existing LaTeX markup practices.
 * Effort to support mathematics editing and rendering comes entirely from the volunteer community. Currently one volunteer is working on mathematics rendering, and support for mathematics editing in VE consisted of one GSoC summer volunteer.

WMF planning
We are reliably informed that WMF has no plans for development of mathematics rendering and editing. That is, there is no plan to coordinate volunteer effort; no plan to integrate volunteer effort into existing products; no plan to ensure the sustainability of mathematics rendering and editing through major changes to the software and user interface.

As a consequence of the lack of plans, there is no allocation of WMF developer effort to the maintenance, sustainability or enhancement of mathematics rendering and editing. It is assumed that volunteer developers will undertake any tasks that are necessary, even though there is no plan to coordinate those efforts.

It is reasonable to say that there is considerable expertise and experience in mathematics rendering and editing in the existing editor communities. There is no explicit mechanism to capture that experience and make use of it in planning, development or review. Such efforts as have been made to do so are limited in extent and driven by the user community rather than WMF. The role of Community Advocates in linking the editor community and WMF planning and developers in this context has not been effective.

Suggestions

 * General
 * WMF planning address the issue of development of mathematics and other complex rendering markup and editing components.
 * WMF liaise actively and effectively with existing editor and reader communities in (1).
 * WMF draw up roadmap for development of complex rendering and editing.
 * WMF liaise actively and effectively with volunteer developer communities to determine required frameworks and work packages.
 * WMF allocate funds and resources to support work packages.


 * Specific
 * Mathematics rendering to be based on MathJax as principal vehicle, with efficiency and resources issues resolved on a wide variety of platforms.
 * LaTeX markup retained as principal mode of editing mathematics text with concomitant option to directly edit at the wikitext markup level.
 * WMF establish a workflow for further development and deployment of the math extension, using the https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:Math/Roadmap page to coordinate the development process.
 * WMF designate a fixed contact person at WMF that cares about math related questions and a brief to maintain regular and frequent contact with volunteer community.


 * Short-term
 * Fix MathSource mode is currently disabled: see  which resolves this issue.
 * Fix issues with experimental mathoid (MathML + SVG) support on the Beta Cluster.

I have copied this text to the Board wiki and emailed the board (and Lila) asking them to read it. THANK YOU for this. This is a very helpful and concise statement of the issues and concerns. I will personally recommend that we allocate resources to this. It's a straightforward request with obvious benefits - not just benefits in terms of improving the experience of mathematics editors, but benefits in terms of providing a great template for community/foundation cooperation.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Suggestions:
 * Keep LaTeX as the platform of choice
 * Don't break the use of LaTeX
 * No-one wants Visual Editor. Of people who might (might) benefit from it, even they're hardly clamouring for it. I'm assuming (which will probably be challenged, but I see it as axiomatic) that those with most need to edit maths are also those most likely to be happy and capable of doing it in LaTeX source. In which case our most important goal above all else is to not screw that up. Anything else is so secondary as to be barely visible. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:01, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I would like to add that I believe most mathematicians aren't going to be willing to write mathematics in anything other than LaTeX source (or by hand). Drop LaTeX support and many people will stop editing maths articles. —Kusma (t·c) 14:14, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, for whatever it is worth, I don't think anyone anywhere ever suggested dropping LaTeX support. This is more about how to improve from where we are, i.e. more ambitious than just not being stupid.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me add my voice to those arguing for keeping (and improving) LaTeX support. Writing a simple formula editor may be a nice project, but using one is much more painful than writing simple, well thought-out markup, at least for people who know what they are doing. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:31, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Again, there is no reason to "argue for" that since there is no one arguing against it. I am unaware of anyone even remotely discussing or suggesting that we drop LaTeX support.  That really is not what this conversation is about.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not expecting WMF to 'drop' LaTeX support. I'm far more worried that they're going to improve it so much that it no longer works. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It is not correct to say that nobody wants visual editor. I'm in a large group of editors who tried, it, found it wanting and abandoned it. However, after attending a session led by Phoebe Ayers. I gave it another try, and now use it in some cases. The referencing functionality is better, still not as good as what I can do offline, but at least it works. I've been in correspondence with James Forrester about additional improvements to referencing, specifically autofilling references with an ISBN or doi, and that seems to be coming along nicely. Once that exists, it will be much easier to add those types of references in VE. If I can also convince digital providers to make digital identifiers ubiquitous, it will literally make referencing easy, even for beginners.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  12:58, 24 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Hello. Most of mathematicians are writing through various tools that are writing into LaTex, not by writing directly in LaTeX language. For example, Maple or SAGE are providing a latex function, allowing to copy and paste the most tedious parts. Moreover, many macros are "quite standard" like \C to provide $$ \Complex $$. This also shouldn't be broken. Best regards. Pldx1 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Copyediting is tedious but lasts
As I read comments from people who want to make a lasting impact on Wikipedia, perhaps we should remind them how the wp:GOCE copy-editing of pages (from ragged-to-refined) can produce a massive impact, which often lasts for years, is rarely reverted (unlike POV edit-wars), and typically avoids disputes (at least to skip any page where people complain). Unlike updates to hot-topic pages, where people might bicker for days or months, the copy-editing of dozens of less-popular pages can revise hundreds of details (often 100-400 per page), while perhaps only one-page-per-hundred leads to a dispute over editing.

Currently, the wp:GOCE backlog has stretched into over 16 months during the past 2 years, and we need more editors to reduce the backlog to below 1 year. In particular, the ragged pages listed from July/August 2013 need to be revised during the next 2 months, and with upcoming efforts to clear March-June 2013, we could reduce the total backlog to only 11 months. See pages in categories: &bull; Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit_from_July_2013 &bull; Category:Wikipedia_articles_needing_copy_edit_from_August_2013 An effective backlog drive needs over 800 hours of editing, which could average 10 hours per month each, with 80 people participating (or ~3 hours per week). Anyway, if more people could join the wp:GOCE (Guild of Copy Editors), then we could spread the word about how copy-editing of pages, although tedious, can lead to impressive results, as ragged-to-refined pages where people will see their hard work last, unreverted, for years and years. This is one area where a few dozen people can have an extensive, lasting impact on the quality of Wikipedia. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:15, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I prefer to choose one type of mistake at a time, search for a character string from the search box, read enough on each article found to ascertain whether correction is needed, and then make one or more corrections on each article. In this way, I can proceed more quickly and efficiently with one or more automatically generated edit summaries.  Sometimes, I search for mistakes in non-article namespaces.
 * For editors who prefer to work on backlogs, I suggest WP:DUSTY (permanent link) and its list of links under "See also". Also, I suggest that other editors copyedit pages in non-article namespaces.  Those pages have a more official nature, and a mistake there can mislead editors to imitating the same mistake.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 00:47, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Copyediting pages that people read: The wp:GOCE backlog tends to fix pages which many people are actively viewing, 20-2,000 times per day, where there were dozens or hundreds of punctuation or phrasing problems, and hence, the overall impact is massive. Note: fixing 50 errors viewed 100x per day, means 5,000 fewer mistakes to see each day. There is little need to "assess" the backlog pages because over 98% of those pages require extensive changes, and the resulting edits generate a ragged-to-refined transformation of pages which are read a hundred or thousands of times per week. Because all those pages are read so often, then the quality improvement for Wikipedia becomes massive. Some editors are continually tagging other ragged pages into the wp:GOCE backlog, and they are extremely keen at spotting pages which need numerous/hundreds of fixes but also tend to be read often. The combined efforts of the dozens of people tagging or copy-editing the backlog pages produces this miraculous transformation of thousands of interesting pages each year, from ragged-to-refined, and few people could imagine how many hundreds of typos (or cite glitches) were corrected in each page. Where pages are not specifically copy-edited end-to-end, then the numerous typos often remain in those pages for years (more near page bottom), as a night-and-day difference in quality of typesetting, tone or clarified phrasing. -Wikid77 15:00, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Many common errors in English usage are discussed by Paul Brians, Emeritus Professor of English, Washington State University.
 * Common Errors in English Usage
 * I recommend that all Wikipedia editors refer frequently to his discussions of common errors in English usage.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I still think we could create a smart Lua script module, to check for perhaps 500 commonly misspelled words, and detect unusual punctuation such as space-comma (" ,") or space-dot (" .") or dot-capital (".C"), plus pinpoint other common text problems. However, I think there might be a vicious deletion-discussion, and such valuable tools would be deleted "because they would be difficult to maintain" or some other typical bogus reason to block major improvements here. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:18, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Would that module make corrections (see AutoWikiBrowser/Typos) that can not be made by AutoWikiBrowser?
 * —Wavelength (talk) 05:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC) and 16:30, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

VisualEditor global newsletter—June 2014
Did you know? The character formatting menu, or "" menu lets you set bold, italic, and other text styles. "Clear formatting" removes all text styles and removes links to other pages.

Do you think that clear formatting should remove links? Are there changes you would like to see for this menu? Share your opinion at MediaWiki.org.

The user guide has information about how to use VisualEditor. The VisualEditor team is mostly working to fix bugs, improve performance, reduce technical debt, and other infrastructure needs. You can find on Mediawiki.org weekly updates detailing recent work.


 * They have moved the "" link out of the "" menu, into the "" menu. Within dialog boxes, buttons are now more accessible (via the Tab key) from the keyboard.
 * You can now see the target of the link when you click on it, without having to open the inspector.
 * The team also expanded TemplateData: You can now add a parameter type  "  for dates and times in the ISO 8601 format, and  "  for values which are true or false. Also, templates that redirect to other templates (like   →  ) now get the TemplateData of their target (bug 50964).  You can test TemplateData by editing mw:Template:Sandbox/doc.
 * Category: and File: pages now display their contents correctly after saving an edit (bug 65349, bug 64239)
 * They have also improved reference editing: You should no longer be able to add empty citations with VisualEditor (bug 64715), as with references.  When you edit a reference, you can now empty it and click the "use an existing reference" button to replace it with another reference instead.
 * It is now possible to edit inline images with VisualEditor. Remember that inline images cannot display captions, so existing captions get removed.  Many other bugs related to images were also fixed.
 * You can now add and edit   and   in the "" menu, rounding out the full set of page options currently planned.
 * The tool to insert special characters is now wider and simpler.

Looking ahead
The VisualEditor team has posted a draft of their goals for the next fiscal year. You can read them and suggest changes on MediaWiki.org.

The team posts details about planned work on VisualEditor's roadmap. You will soon be able to drag-and-drop text as well as images. If you drag an image to a new place, it won't let you place it in the middle of a paragraph. All dialog boxes and windows will be simplified based on user testing and feedback. The VisualEditor team plans to add autofill features for citations. Your ideas about making referencing quick and easy are still wanted. Support for upright image sizes is being developed. The designers are also working on support for viewing and editing hidden HTML comments and adding rows and columns to tables.

Supporting your wiki
Please read VisualEditor/Citation tool for information on configuring the new citation template menu, labeled "". This menu will not appear unless it has been configured on your wiki.

If you speak a language other than English, we need your help with translating the user guide. The guide is out of date or incomplete for many languages, and what's on your wiki may not be the most recent translation. Please contact me if you need help getting started with translation work on MediaWiki.org.

VisualEditor can be made available to most non-Wikipedia projects. If your community would like to test VisualEditor, please contact product manager James Forrester or file an enhancement request in Bugzilla.

Please share your questions, suggestions, or problems by posting a note at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback or by joining the office hours on Saturday, 19 July 2014 at 21:00 UTC (daytime for the Americas and Pacific Islands) or on Thursday, 14 August 2014 at 9:00 UTC (daytime for Europe, Middle East, Asia).

To change your subscription to this newsletter, please see the subscription pages on Meta or the English Wikipedia. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 04:59, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Persian Wikipedia administrators
hi jimbo. i have some issues with persians wiki admins. they are Censoring one of the politician's page : Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, former persian king of iran. i have academic sources, which published by California University Press, it says :

[http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6c6006wp&chunk.id=d0e3081&toc.depth=1&toc.id=d0e2797&brand=ucpress The shah's paranoia reaches its peak when discussing the 1979 revolution. He claims that his overthrow was brought about by a "strange amalgam" of not only the clergy, the Tudeh, and the oil companies but also the Western media and, of course, the Carter and Thatcher administrations].[ i have another sources, from abrahamian and other professors which prove the paranoia of the king. but admins says it's not enough to prove and you should give another sources. none of them won't hear my Argument. what your help to Subject them. thanks.--Mazdak5 (talk) 18:53, 25 June 2014 (UTC)


 * [I am revising the heading of this section from a little help please to Persian Wikipedia administrators, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.  The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.  Also, I am revising the heading level, because this is a new topic, and not a subtopic of the previous topic.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2014 (UTC)]


 * Unfortunately as I am unable to read Farsi, I will not be very helpful in terms of detailed editing disputes. If you email me, I can try to connect you with Persian Wikipedians whom I know and trust.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Trapped in North Korea please help
Mr Wales, my name is Abigael Handlykken. I am 25 years of age and in December I read an article in Teknisk Ukeblad in which you talked about USB sticks with Wikipedia being smuggled into North Korea. As an opponent of the despicable regime and a firm believer in the notion that knowledge will set you free, I travelled to Pyongyang as a tourist. In my luggage I had some USB sticks containing the Korean Wikipedia, but I was stopped at Pyongyang airport and arrested. I have not been given consular access as Norway does not have embassy here. I am in the office of the kommandant of the prison he has been called away for a disturbance and I have feigned epileptic seizure to have guard leave me for some minutes. Please help me Mr Wales, you're my only hope! Please help. Abigael 175.45.176.130 (talk) 04:49, 26 June 2014 (UTC) Also, do not smuggle into North Korea, you may end up like me, not knowing what will happen. Help!
 * The IP address geolocates to the DPRK, but I have no way to verify the accuracy of anything else said here. I hope that more knowledgeable editors will comment. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  04:57, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * How far away is Australia from the DPRK??? Carrite (talk) 05:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmm...perhaps the reference desk will be able to better help her /sarcasm
 * Nothing to worry about - Traceroute shows connections from Sprint (cellular) to China to North Korea, which is similar to and reminds me of when when The Pirate Bay pulled a prank by routing/spoofing traffic through North Korea for April Fools. Definitely not impossible to do. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:15, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ...but this did provide a good laugh. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and . I am smart enough to know what I don't know, and to ask those who do. Cullen328   Let's discuss it  05:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * @SuperHamster While to some people you might appear to have an idea what you are talking about, using the Pirate Bay technique would be like using a nuclear bomb to squash a roach. The intention of that hack was to provide a false apparent address to incoming connections by intentionally 'breaking' part of the internet, not to merely connect to a website from an address on the other side of the planet. All that traceroute 'proved' is that the host path to 175.45.176.130 is in fact legitimately routed through the DPRKs upstream ISP in China, which is in fact the exact opposite of how it was 'proven' that the Pirate Bay wasn't being hosted in North Korea. Full of yourself? 175.106.33.60 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Dang, I s'pose so :( But thank you! ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 13:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if this is honest I doubt there is much we could do beyond referring the situation to diplomatic officials. My hunch is that this is a hoax, although I will make sure that WMF's CA team hears about this post in case they know more than we do. --Pine✉ 07:07, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Clearly a troll, similar in tone to a recent Spanish language item on this page which geolocated to Australia. Feigning an epileptic seizure to clear a room of a prison commandant so that a lengthy SOS message can be sent from his computer — posted to Jimmy Wales' talk page?!?! Yeah, right. Quack quack. Carrite (talk) 07:14, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, . I didn't notice the earlier Spanish language item here. I must have been helping at the Teahouse, or working on an article, or dealing with a real world paying customer off-Wikipedia. Or sleeping. Cullen328  Let's discuss it  07:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's clearly trolling. I remember a bizarre thread on Wikipediocracy which (deliberately?) misrepresented me as advocating for young people to smuggle USB sticks into North Korea.  It's a riff on that meme.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:41, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Now I know, Jimbo. Sorry if I devoted more attention than it deserved. 07:59, 26 June 2014 (UTC)Cullen328  Let's discuss it
 * Well, the geolocation was interesting, if for no other reason than to ponder how much of someone's life was wasted spoofing an ip number.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 09:13, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * TIL... reads Wikipediocracy. Who would have thought. 146.255.183.217 (talk) 08:43, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Huh? What happens is that WO people post here with an attention-seeking heading, and they explain what the current attack-of-the-day is. Johnuniq (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I seriously don't think the Chosen officials would overlook your mobile apparatus which could result in horrible punishment. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Best laugh I've had in a while. North Korea, great prank IMO :-P <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  08:58, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * From all accounts, it is not possible to get mobile devices to connect to the internet (that we all know) in Pyongyang, but it is possible in areas closer to the Chinese border where people use Chinese simcards which means they would have Chinese IPs. This IP seems to be part of a wider range of North Korean IPs, and there is no reason to think that the IP is spoofed. What is hard to believe though is that Jimmy seems to think . Anyway, that IP is no more spoofed than the IP I am using right now. Bye. 116.87.124.123 (talk) 09:39, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it would be better if you asked me what I think rather than --Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Mr Wales, in defence of my esteemed colleague above, if one wants to know what you truly think, you go to the media and read your interviews. In this article in Ingeniøren, you clearly stated: "»Nordkorea er et ekstremt eksempel. Her smugler folk Wikipedias koreanske udgave ind på USB-nøgler, da de ikke har internetadgang. Det er meget tys tys. Ofte er det teenagere, der skal bruges det til at lave deres lektier.«"

.
 * Teknisk Ukeblad, which the unlucky girl now stuck in North Korea said she reads, also published the story, and they clearly stated "Nord-Korea er et ekstremt eksempel. Her smugler folk Wikipedias koreanske utgave inn via USB-nøkler, da de ikke har internett-tilgang. Det er meget hysj-hysj. Ofte er det tenåringer som bruker det som hjelp til å gjøre lekser, sier Wikipedia-grunnleggeren til det danske tidsskriftet Ingeniøren."
 * no:Lekser, being, of course, homework. So, did you, or did you not, say that teenagers in North Korea often use Wikipedia to do their homework. Or are these reputable publications just the latest in a long line of media to have distorted your words? I'll go with the reliable source, particularly as you seem to think poor Abigael is spoofing her "IP number". Enjoy this video from my home city. 91.202.242.213 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

IP spoofing was not only not involved, but it would be technically impossible to do that way, since you would be tricking the webserver into serving pages to someone else's machine. I'm not spoofing an IP, either, and I'm sure the hell not in...(checks) Kabul. Props to you, 116.87.124.123, though. 175.106.33.60 (talk) 11:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Dispute with another editor
Hello, I am a new editor on Wikipedia, and I have recently been involved in an escalating dispute with another editor, Kansas Bear, over something that began with a possible edit-war over an edit I had made on the Muslim conquests article. After reverting my edit multiple times (the first time only eight minutes after I had edited the page), each time demanding alternate or better sources, which he continued to reject, he had me reported to a friend of his, a sysop who in turn removed the edit once again on his behalf. I do not at all appreciate receiving such a threat as my first message here, nor do I find it tolerable to be repeatedly accused of "falsification" of information without any basis.
 * What is more, for some time now, this user has frequently accused many other editors of "edit-warring" while blatantly doing so himself, leaving them very harsh, uncivil and even threatening messages, some even bordering on personal attacks, as he did with me, with threats of reporting them to administrators or having them banned altogether (see ), while further engaging in very heated and lengthy discussions on similar articles, such as Talk:Muslim conquests on the Indian subcontinent, constantly reverting or removing edits on this and numerous other related articles while seeming to disregard, for the most part, the input and arguments of other users. I no longer much care about my particular contribution being removed, but I do not wish to have the attacks he has made on me and others here ignored without consequence.
 * I have not yet attempted to edit the article - or most any other article - neither do I wish to escalate this disagreement more than it already has by seeking other solutions. Indeed, if he requests so, I will leave Wikipedia altogether if necessary, but I would at the very least have this dispute resolved as soon as possible. Torontas (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Torontas. Jimbo almost never gets directly involved with this type of issue.  Try the dispute resolution noticeboard or maybe better, the tea house (an advice board for new editors) instead.  I haven't looked at the article you mention but yes, people do get fussy about sources here, and sometimes it's off-putting to new editors. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Review
If a few editors could review this FLC candidate, that would be great. Seattle (talk) 15:52, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * And if anyone wants to take a look at the Harlem Riot of 1943 that would be great too. Seattle (talk) 16:00, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

German Admin banning users with self-proclaimed "Hyper-Light-Velocity"
Administrator called Itti from the German Wikipedia is stating on her page that "she" "deletes and bans with hyper-lightvelocity".

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzerin:Itti

This obviously doesn't meet any general standard of obligation for executive care.

Furthermore there is at least one person every day that feels annoyed or even stalked.

P.S.: Any recommendation to take it to the German Wiki oder Admin board is useless, as "Itti" is deleting any complaint before anyone there is able to read it--37.230.13.58 (talk) 17:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * This is an issue for the German Wikipedia's community; you will have to follow their processes, including appealing any bans or blocks their community has set on you.--Jasper Deng (talk) 17:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First off, this is not about me, personally. I've been following this user's conduct for a couple of weeks and there's a whole bunch of (unbanned) users constantly filing complaints on her talk page, which "she" then deletes within seconds (!). In addition, following German Wikipedia's processes is useless, as I already stated, as "Itti" is stalking anyone and any complaint, even by active users, is erased with "hyper-lightspeed". And surprise, surprise, my info on her talk page, that she was mentioned here, was erased in the same minute (!) -probably to prevent one of the over 400 users having her on the watchlist to take notice and come here.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Don't mind this, nonsense. -jkb- (talk) 17:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * User -jkb- is a personal friend of the mentioned German admin called Itti, therefore his input is not valid or to be taken seriously. But let's see whether one of the users feeling annoyed or stalked shows up here...--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also interesting that Itti bans entire ip ranges in turkey, where "opposition members risk their life to overcome internet bans". https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=131425250&oldid=131425075--37.230.13.58 (talk) 18:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Are you kidding? The User/IP you mentioned is blocked after CU . --Alraunenstern (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * First off, you are the one who reverted the information on the mentioned admin's page that he is discussed here. https://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzerin_Diskussion:Itti&diff=131666862&oldid=131666849 And your reason is obvious: You want to prevent those users who regularly visit that abusive user's page and regularly complain about him to take notice about this. That is clear.


 * On a second note, whether the OP adding the original info that the mentioned admin has banned entire ip ranges in turkey, has been banned or not is irrelevant. The problem is a German Admin is jeopardizing the physical health of tens of thousand of people in turkey, where free speech is suppressed and oppositionals jeopardize their life to overcome internet bans.


 * If you want to say that getting one member banned on the German Wikipedia - where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked, btw - justifies blocking entire ip ranges when the users inside this range try to fight a dictatorship and try to illuminate their country over Wikipedia what their government is all about, then you and this administrator and all his friends probably should either forbear of using ip range blocks to single out a user or give up on Wikipedia, completely, cause this is obviously not only the wrong place for xenophobic views but also for risking people's lives and chances to elucidate their fellowmen about dictatorships while trying to circumvent ending up in a Turkish prison cell.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't discuss with someone who accuses me of xenophobic tendencies and surmises "where a whole lot of admins show xenophobic tendencies and which may be the reason why this user has been blocked". EOD --Alraunenstern (talk) 20:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Who said I have interest discussing with you? You revert justified complaints from friendly user's pages, so who cares about people doing things like this? Besides, I have witnessed enough examples of xenophobia on the German Wikipedia and will not let you turn things upside down telling the opposite. And what is sad is I highly respect the German culture and I know loads of educated and tolerant people from this country, but what I see on the German Wikipedia, especially when it comes to foreigners or orientals trying to make articles or edits, often makes me shiver. --37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Does the German Wikipedia have a version of our WP:ANI? If so it would be a better forum than this talk page to complain about the actions of a German Wikipedia administrator. On our ANI, a baseless complaint may have an undesired effect. Edison (talk) 20:08, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * As I said, complaints on the German's ANI are highly likely to be deleted by user's with "hyper-light velocity"...--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sure we have. But this IP is an incident by itself, that's the problem. -jkb- (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Wait a minute, aren't you the admin who likes to permanently ban foreign users, after they have made an article that contains a few mistakes, rather than try to correct these? That is an incident, by itself.--37.230.13.58 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

If a user is travelling faster than light, there's nothing to see here. ;-) Jonathunder (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Hiho, here I am. What a funny post here. You made my day! Regards, the devil of the night. By the way, could anybody stop this IP, the postings are more than abusive. --Itti (talk) 21:21, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Done. He's evading an indef block on his account here, anyway. Choess (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What did the edit summary mean? "This, too, is probably Ernest Shackleton's fault".  Ernest Shackleton didn't travel faster than light in Antarctica.  Did the sockpuppet travel faster than light?  What did a heroic explorer have to do with this?  I have missed the point.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps it is this thread that can travel faster than light, as no information is being conveyed. Newyorkbrad (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * @Choess, merci :-), @Robert McClenon, this IP belongs to a multiple indef blocked user on dewiki. We call him "Südpolarforscher". Here is a list of his accounts and IPs. He hates Shackleton and all time he tries to bring his POV into artikel over Shackleton an artikel arrount the exploration of the South Pole. I´m Admin and Crat on dewiki. Thank you and have a nice day. --Itti (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * If you can find him and capture him, take him to a few miles away from the South Pole, where there are no visitors, and freeze him. Then he can be eaten by Amundsen's sled dogs.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Amundsen's sled dogs prefered obviously seals and penguins not puppets :-) -jkb- (talk) 07:26, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * First, while Amundsen's dogs preferred seals and penguins, with ample blubber, there were no seals in the interior of Antarctica, and any penguins would have to be shot first. The dogs were not that selective.  Amundsen's dogs also ate Amundsen's dogs (after Amundsen selected which dogs were to be cannibalized).  Second, I didn't mean to take the sockpuppet to Antarctica, but to take the banned user to Antarctica.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * oh, combien raffinée :-) -jkb- (talk) 19:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

More Yank Barry lawsuit questions
The lawsuit filed by Yank Barry was mentioned a few days ago, but I have some more questions on the general issues involved. To avoid arguing the main case, I won't address the apparent contributions of, , here, though it appears (to a casual examination, which doesn't rule out potential editing after the fact) that most of the edits referenced in the suits seem attributed to them in the archived version. My main interest is how John Does 1 to 50 and one other named editor whose account isn't obvious could be involved.

To begin with, I looked through that list of 31 quotes listed in the lawsuit. Apart from the three authors I'm excluding, these seem to be:


 * (11) I removed the Bo Derek, Yank Barry film announcement because an announcement was never made.  (archive 1)
 * (13) he was in the music business and is now is involved in "the multi-level marketing field" specifically with VitaPro, Global Village, Propectin and Jeunesse.  (archive 2)
 * (19) So yeah, it really does look like "random lawyer in Bulgaria claims to nominate Yank Barry", which isn't worth mentioning in the article.  (archive 1)
 * (30) ''Misrepresenting the situation by contributing to the false impression that he was a regular part of the band is a problem per WP:BLP. The band's willingness to play a one-off show with him changes nothing.   (Talk:Yank Barry)
 * (29) seems to be cut and pasted together from five different RfC comments on Talk:Yank Barry by, , , and . In the lawsuit these are joined to read as a single paragraph.  There are some other apparent paraphrasing irregularities in (26) and (9/17) but at least not multiple authors.

Now some questions. I'm not a lawyer, so please understand these are pretty ignorant:


 * What happens when a lawsuit contains an inaccurate transcript of a Wikipedia conversation? Is it possible, for example, that the firm suing over comment 29 could subpoena WMF for information about the identity of all four authors of the quote, or even of the intervening authors whose comments were omitted, or everyone who participated in the RfC?  If that were the case, is there a way for Wikipedia to challenge the transcript to protect the identities of those authors?


 * Would WMF be allowed to notify authors whose identity is subpoenaed?


 * If so, do they?


 * If this information is handed over, are there any limits on how it can subsequently be used? For example, would law firms be able to reuse it for other clients, or trade it with other firms online?


 * Do Wikipedians have any self-help mechanism to match editors with those who could serve as expert witnesses about how Wikipedia works? For example, to explain how Editingisthegame was asking other editors if they had consensus to move forward, rather than repeating something just to repeat it or out of malice.  Who is able to serve as an expert witness for Wikipedia questions?  Does WMF have any advice for potential experts?


 * No matter how wide a net I cast, I don't understand where you get 50 John Does, unless maybe every editor of the talk page ever is a defendant. Is it normal for a lawsuit to name an excess of John Does "just in case", or do they really have 50 people in mind?


 * To my untrained eye, the core of this lawsuit is the idea that every editor named is part of a "conspiracy" with joint and several liability for every other editor's actions. In the case of the people whose quotes I listed above, that seems remarkable.  I mean, even if Npl10 was wrong and an announcement was made, they would be saying he should be liable for what all these other people did, not merely for the minor offense of not finding an announcement or for not plating his announcement with "so far as I could determine".  Is there any precedent (Usenet, chat rooms, online forums, etc.) for considering an article Talk: page to be a conspiracy, whether or not the version of the article at the time was biased?  And does WMF take seriously the general issue of whether it could be regarded as one, whether for criminal or civil purposes?


 * In the recent discussion someone started talking about SLAPP laws. Of course, it would be premature for WMF to speculate on whether that could apply in this case, but can WMF provide some tools for users to understand what their rights may be under such laws?  For example, do John Does 1-50 have to wait to be named and brought into court, or could they take a proactive stance?  Could Wikipedia editors who make a case that their freedom to edit has been impacted have the chance to win any real money?  The community could benefit greatly from some direction here. Wnt (talk) 18:19, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * The Doe 1-50 thing is almost boilerplate and something like it appears in tons of suits where the exact defendants aren't known in advance.  It doesn't mean they think there are really 50 more likely co-defendants.  The rest of your questions are specific enough that discussing them here on WP is probably counterproductive due to the possibility of any discussion getting recycled into the lawsuit, but at the same time basic enough that if you take a law student out drinking you can probably get some answers.  IANAL etc. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Provided the defendants themselves don't comment, how can our blundering about be recycled into their lawsuit? We have nothing to do with them. Wnt (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to hear an official statement from WMF on these matters: "To my untrained eye, the core of this lawsuit is the idea that every editor named is part of a "conspiracy" with joint and several liability for every other editor's actions. In the case of the people whose quotes I listed above, that seems remarkable. I mean, even if Npl10 was wrong and an announcement was made, they would be saying he should be liable for what all these other people did, not merely for the minor offense of not finding an announcement or for not plating his announcement with "so far as I could determine". Is there any precedent (Usenet, chat rooms, online forums, etc.) for considering an article Talk: page to be a conspiracy, whether or not the version of the article at the time was biased? And does WMF take seriously the general issue of whether it could be regarded as one, whether for criminal or civil purposes?" Also: a statement as to whether WMF has the backs of good faith editors attempting to render neutral POV articles of living people. Because if they don't, it's time for us as a community to do something drastic... Carrite (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is some general info here. I kind of doubt WMF is likely to comment on active litigation but I'm not them.  173.228.123.145 (talk) 20:14, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not "active litigation" against them. Inquiring minds don't just want to know, they need to know — because if this whole "everyone who ever edited is part of a conspiracy to defame" line of reasoning is allowed to win in court, there is absolutely no way that anyone should ever touch a BLP. Good luck with maintaining NPOV in that event. Moreover, potential donors to WP will need to be advised that WMF's $20,000,000+ sitting in the bank doesn't actually help the volunteers in the trenches one whit when they really need it... and there will doubtlessly need be a new non-profit legal defense entity established. Carrite (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * You need to relax. This is not the right place to discuss this matter. Whoever has been sued should (themselves or via their lawyer) contact WMF and request help.  Although policy may say WMF isn't liable, as a practical matter WMF ought to help innocent contributors who get swept up in a lawsuit.  There is also a federal law, the Volunteer Protection Act that shields volunteers from liability for torts, with some exceptions for egregious misconduct. Jehochman Talk 01:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I asked questions rather than calling for drastic action because I still don't understand much of what is going on. For example, just because some other editors were quoted doesn't prove they would be named as defendants even if identified - judging by #29, it's possible some of them were quoted simply in error.  The general information that naming 50 John Does is commonplace does alleviate some of my concern.  I imagine that some other general legal information (such as whether the WMF would be able and willing to notify a Wikipedian if she or he has records subpoenaed, or whether the VPA really protects Wikipedians) would help to reduce the concern further.  In general, the more editors understand about the details of this process, the actual risks and protections they have, the easier it will be for people to get through this process with the confidence that some people will be protected and others can be offered moral, legal, and financial support as appropriate. Wnt (talk) 03:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It's really unhelpful for you or anybody else to discuss the case details here because whatever is said might prejudice one of the parties. When there is a lawsuit, it is a good idea to discuss the case with your own lawyer, and otherwise to remain silent. Jehochman Talk 16:23, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To be clear, I'm not involved with this case so I don't have a lawyer to ask, but as Wikipedians we all have an interest in these issues. These aren't just private claims, but very serious political issues for us that threaten how we work on any article, and I expect Wikipedians to address them the way they should anything, in the open.  If you start deciding that you're afraid even to talk about ongoing situations like this that are prone to affect your behavior, you've already been censored before the government even makes a decision let alone a precedent or law.  I'm assuming those directly involved have been counseled on what to say and not to say.  What do you mean by "prejudice one of the parties"? Wnt (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Somebody in discussing the case might make a loose remark such as, "X did Y, which was wrong" and that statement could be used against X.  A discussion of the case here could prejudice a fellow volunteer.  Please leave it to the parties who are involved to deal with it through their professional lawyers. Any organization that gets sued or has its staff get sued will impose a rule that members of the organization not comment on the case, except when advised to do so by a lawyer.  Jehochman Talk 17:18, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See Leave it to the lawyers. Jehochman Talk 17:20, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Is that supposed to be a redlink, since anything you say can be used against you? Seriously though, I don't understand your suggested prohibition.  I've never been in a room with any of these people.  Anything I know about the case will be the most flagrant hearsay.  So how on Earth can some lawyer claim that something I'd say is evidence that ... anything, so far as the defendants are concerned?  Wikipedia just isn't a company, they don't pay me a salary to keep my mouth shut, they couldn't possibly have paid me to do something unethical, and the only "conspiracy" I could possibly get into is... editing a talk page.  Sigh.  So if this were coming from Wikipedia or someone associated with the defendants I'd think of it as the equivalent of someone going into a Usenet forum or posting to Twitter "don't talk about my case".  Now it's possible that all you're really saying is that the lawyers might not think of something so don't give them any good ideas, but if so you should be clearer that's what you mean. Wnt (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * In my experience lawyers can and will claim anything. Yes, your statement might be used directly or it might provide ideas to the adverse party.  Now that I've told you this three times, do you understand?  You can go to some other site and say whatever you want, but here on Wikipedia, this is not a discussion form, it's not a battlefield, nor is it a place to conduct litigation, settlement discussions or analysis of litigation.   Jehochman Talk 17:35, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * But Wikipedia is a place to educate and to work together to ensure that we are able to do that education. Recognizing the problems is part of that.  If my statement has persuaded you to write an essay that none of us should say boo about any lawsuit affecting anyone on Wikipedia, well, was that a deficiency in policy someone needed to point out?  (But then, how do we respond when we already have a huge article about some lawsuit and then one of the parties registers an account and becomes one of our fellow Wikipedians...)  Maybe if people go through the scenarios and decide this is the only way to prevent a fellow volunteer from being railroaded in some potential future proceeding (and I should emphasize Jehochman and I have been talking about hypothetical issues which have nothing to do with any particular case) they can then organize politically to prevent Wikipedia volunteers or other forum participants from being muzzled, and/or to invent a legal rule that stops idle chatter from strangers from becoming an issue in legal cases that ought to be settled based on things that have some relevance.  But I think there has to be a better way, that the state of the legal system can't be that much a shambles, that we should be able to allow Wikipedians to be Wikipedians.  After all, there have been many Signpost articles and other discussions about the few lawsuits in the past.  Furthermore I should add that this is not a static system - when there's a lawsuit over an article or the related talk page, those pages still exist, people are still changing them and have to decide what to do with them.  I don't think putting the lawsuit under glass and hoping we'll find it mummified in ten years is really an option. Wnt (talk) 17:57, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Re: the above. I don't care particularly if WMF Legal doesn't make a statement about the merits or lack thereof of the specific Yank Barry case. What I myself do want to hear — and I am not alone — is a statement of some sort whether, speaking in general, malicious prosecution in a SLAPP-like manner of individual good faith Wikipedians attempting to render a POV biography of a living person to an NPOV state will be provided with substantial assistance by WMF. This is an enormously important matter to those of us who write content and WMF needs to clearly understand that they need to do the right thing if this situation should arise. Actions speak louder than words, obviously. Carrite (talk) 17:59, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a policy that WMF may help. They purposely keep their promise weak, but in practice I think they will always stand behind a good faith contributor, because if they don't, we're all going to quit.  Perhaps they should strengthen the policy, but there is a risk that doing so may encourage more litigation because prospective plaintiffs will feel that WMF is acting like a deep pocket insurance company. Jehochman Talk 18:04, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I am emphatically not requesting a statement from anybody but the WMF Board or its Legal representatives — one member of the Board being Jimmy Wales. The amateur legal theorizing above is interesting and irrelevant; your political position on this matter untenable. Carrite (talk) 18:10, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Additional note. The Yank Barry case is not a matter of a plaintiff going after the "deep pockets" of WMF, it is an attempt to agglomerate multiple editors into an alleged "conspiracy" and to go after their "shallow pockets," leaving WMF and its legal and financial arsenal alone. I have no opinion as to whether any part of the case has merit; this is what appears to be the strategy here and the precedent will have lasting consequences. Carrite (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't think we have the right to put them on the spot if they don't want to comment - ultimately Wikipedia is us, all the people who do something with it, and the WMF is just one refined expression of our desires. Speaking generally, in response to your hypothetical scenario, in our ability to educate the public about what their rights are and how to use them we potentially can have immense power; we represent a majority that will, if it is truly necessary, become mobilized for action.  We need simply keep an eye out for unsound, unfair ideas and practices that pollute the cause of justice, and call them out as necessary to preserve our right to educate. Wnt (talk) 18:30, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Emails
Hi.

I've emailed you three times, I think, and you answered one ... after about six months. None of the issues in the emails were critical, and I think they all worked out OK without your advice or participation, and I wouldn't expect anyone in your position to read every word written to you. Do you often not read emails?

The reason I ask is, Greg Kohs told me the other day that he emailed you with an apology once, and you didn't reply. In that discussion, Mason said, judging by your response to emails he's sent you, you probably didn't read it. I thought if there is any chance you never read that email, you wouldn't mind me pointing it out. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 09:12, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * "Do you often not read emails?" is an impolite question. If you sent Jimmy emails with the same tone, a correct response might be to ignore them.  If you aren't getting responses to your emails, consider whether they needed any.  You don't get to demand that somebody take the time to read and respond to your email.  It's a choice whether they do or don't.  As for any banned users who emailed apologies, please let them deal with their own issues.  Actions speak louder than words. Jehochman Talk 09:57, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanations. I didn't mean to sound rude. I've read a number of confessions of well-known people admitting that they've just flushed away an impossible email backlog to trash, or that they often, try as they will, just don't read stuff they know they should, because of the sheer volume. Jimmy doesn't owe me, you or Kohs a reading. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

The Internet's Own Boy: The Story of Aaron Swartz (documentary, now free)
The Aaron Swartz Documentary was released this weekend. I don't know what quite to say except that you should watch it, and it's free (cause it's CC-licensed).


 * Watch on youtube:
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHNNHsycaCY


 * Watch on internet archive:
 * https://archive.org/details/TheInternetsOwnBoyTheStoryOfAaronSwartz


 * Purchase from Takepart.com:
 * http://www.takepart.com/internets-own-boy

I don't know what the family or filmmaker would want in contributions, but I know two organizations that would benefit from donations, now as much as ever:


 * Demand Progress:
 * http://www.demandprogress.org


 * Electronic Frontier Foundation:
 * http://www.eff.org

Hope you're all well,

Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 13:23, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Jake, you rock. Carrite (talk) 01:20, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Creepy, or the sum of human knowledge?
Jimbo, have a look at this edit. That's a Wikipedia editor documenting a local weather girl, posting her specific times on air. The creep-out factor comes when you consider the fact that your ArbCom recently banned that editor, presumably because he was the same editor caught three years ago on your iCarly Wikia site, chatting it up about masturbation with someone he thought was a 12-year-old girl. In your opinion, is this a "good edit" or an edit that should be reverted? - 2001:558:1400:10:D9FD:4796:4404:3EB1 (talk) 17:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As the editor has been blocked, this seems like old news, as the edit seems otherwise innocuous. Thanks, Captain Obvious! JoeSperrazza (talk) 17:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * No, I can't see anything 'creepy' about the post. Possibly unencyclopaedic, in that I can't see why we need to list such details for the on-air staff. I think the OP might however like to consider the appropriateness of referring to a meteorologist as a 'girl' though... AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:51, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, not a 'girl', a 'meteorologist'. - 2001:558:1400:10:D9FD:4796:4404:3EB1 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Let's see, a banned editor who has been engaged in creepy harassment for many years by posting personal information about me and my children, my physical location, personal finances, etc is worried about someone else being creepy. Huh.
 * As it turns out, despite my excessive tolerance towards Mr. 2001 despite everything, I think he's right. I would tend to revert nonencyclopedic information that seems creepy.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:00, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "I think that when we have people in the public eye who are subject of some questions of some scandal or what have you, that the right of ordinary people to discuss that openly is fundamental. I think it's key to what it means to live in an open society and a democratic society, and it's very problematic when we realise that a law which forbids speaking certain facts -- true facts -- even when it impinges on the rights of ordinary people to talk to their friends, that something's gone very horribly wrong there." -- Jimmy Wales; June 30, 2011. - 2001:558:1400:10:D9FD:4796:4404:3EB1 (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course rational people can see the difference between "the right of ordinary people to discuss that [scandal] openly" and "posting personal information about me and my children, my physical location, personal finances, etc" but maybe honey badgers don't care. John Carter (talk) 18:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding your edit summary "creepy harassment" or "ordinary person discussing openly" - this is just another example of why, IMO, you have greatly diminished credibility in your quest to right the great wrongs you believe have been done to you. For the same reason that some may consider the edit you noted as being creepy because of who made the edit, your continuing edits here on this page, from a thinly disguised IP, are "creepy harassment", not an "ordinary person discussing openly". JoeSperrazza (talk) 18:58, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Can you two meet for dinner sometime, or coffee, or a steel cage match, and hash this out once and for all? I think the beefs on both sides of this are valid, but y'know, if Obama can have a sitdown with Bill O'Reilly, then anything's possible. Tarc (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The last time Jimbo came uninvited to Mr 2001's talkpage would be, I guess, years ago. The last time the reverse occurred was a few hours ago, and seemingly ongoing like what normal people call "an obsession". --Demiurge1000 (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What the heck? I see the other broadcasters have their broadcast times indicated at the time prior to the edit indicated (which was ).  Now I admit, my moral compass is one of those older analog models without the fancy automatic updating features, but I just can't picture how it is a violation of privacy to say when someone has a scheduled appearance on broadcast television, even if she is a woman!  P.S. according to WP:CHILDPROTECT the insinuation about the editor should be redacted.  Alternatively, if we're not following that policy, we should discuss publicly what evidence there really is and try to come to a community decision.  The thing I least want to see happen is for a banned editor to be able to come out and freely make an accusation like that against an editor, yet nobody can refute or seriously analyze it, or even look into it except by going to a site the banned editor is associated with and looking at only his opinion about what he thinks happened. Wnt (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * @JW. You need to let it go, man. The opposite of love is not hate, it is indifference. Break the cycle, shrug it off... There is nothing that a glorious "Whatever..." won't cure.  Carrite (talk) 01:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is better advice for Mr. 2001, who has otherwise seemed to devote an enormous slice of his life to not letting it go. These threads are no win, and at least some participants are self-professed trolls - how much of this sort of thing is actual trolling? Close one of these drama-fest threads and out come the "critics" to revert, repost, and/or snark about it. Reply, and out come the suggestions that JW needs to "let it go". Such behavior only serves to dilute any possible validity of the criticisms espoused by those involved. "Whatever" would be a great response, and I'd suggest the next time Mr. 2001 posts here the discussion be closed with exactly that note. JoeSperrazza (talk) 02:23, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed. Strange, Carrite, to offer me this advice.  Mr. 2001 has wasted by my count something like 8 years on this campaign.  I spend no resources doing anything to him, and indeed I'm gloriously and ridiculously tolerant and bemused by his impotence.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Community-sourcing, NOT Crowdsourcing: A blog post I hope Jimmy will appreciate
Hello Jimmy and all. Due to our shared disdain for likening Wikipedia to crowdsourcing, I wanted to share a blog post that I just wrote for the New Media Consortium titled, "Why You'll Never Hear Me Call Wikipedia Crowdsourcing." I speak a lot about the nuance of crowdsourcing and its role on a wider spectrum of Open Authority. (This is a term I established through my graduate research, and it was inspired by Wikipedia. I'll be speaking on it at Wikimania.) This blog was written within my role as a contributing editor for the New Media Consortium, an organization that aggregates information on ed-tech in schools and museums. Enjoy! LoriLee (talk) 14:54, 26 June 2014 (UTC)


 * [Once in paragraph 5 and once in paragraph 6, your blog post has the word "asks" where apparently the word "tasks" was intended.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2014 (UTC) and 15:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)]
 * Nope, I mean "asks." You're making "asks" of the community. Sometimes these can be tasks, sure. I do appreciate the feedback! LoriLee (talk) 16:06, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Traditional thinking will get you killed, Wavelength. Ha! Seattle (talk) 18:53, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See http://www.createadvantage.com/glossary/traditional-thinking
 * and http://www.createadvantage.com/glossary/analytical-thinking.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, that confirms the suspicion. Seattle (talk) 15:47, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * [Please see User talk:Seattle.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 15:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)]
 * There is a useful noun "request" (pl. requests) which should be employed by anyone over the age of four, instead of the verb "ask". All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:40, 2 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Small group of people wrote/formatted most of WP: A major point, not mentioned in the blog post, is how the bulk of Wikipedia was written by a relatively small group of people, not as text sourced to a rambling "crowd". Many thousands of articles were copied from the 1911 Britannica or Catholic Encyclopedia and updated. In fact, many of the edits added by general users, from the crowd, are often reverted, and that results in an edit-ratio of 90% of edits are typically hack edits+reverts, where only 10% of edits are actually kept in many pages. Then the remaining text is copy-edited for grammar, NPOV-neutral tone, and clarified phrasing, as a ragged-to-refined transformation; otherwise, pages would (and some still do) remain as rough, awkward text and piled images. The blog post adds a misleading end comment, "it's not inaccurate to label Wikipedia as an example of crowdsourcing" (wait, that's extremely wrong), which completely derails the view for WP written by a select community, not a crowd at all. Perhaps say, "Wikipedia is crowdhacked but corrected" by new-page patrollers and others. Otherwise, just say, "Clean streets are an example of crowdsourcing" (ya right), where the crowd adds most trash and cleanup crews quickly clear the street but leave road patches. Whatever <g>. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, what did you pull that 90% figure out of? &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:59, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The 90% as hack edits+reverts is only for some pages, perhaps "75%" is more common, as with Aspartame?action=history, or reverts in other popular pages. Of course, rare pages are almost never edited beyond the Bot updates. Compare the reverted edits, to see what the "crowd" was putting in those pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It varies form Wikipedia to Wikipedia. Before Wikidata many of the smaller Wikipedias were 90% interwiki edits. Also there was a massive decrease in vandalism as edit filters came into play, as has been pointed out by .  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:44, 2 July 2014 (UTC).


 * That's a good point about edit-filters rejecting many hack edits, as the "crowd" is not allowed to edit all pages any way they wish. I guess it could be said, "The country club is crowdsourced, depending on entry restrictions for membership or decorum". However, even proper edits are reverted by some users who have their own rogue notions of "crowd control" to reject new text, often due to lack of source footnotes. -Wikid77 (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Quality from Deletists Point of View
there ru:Обсуждение проекта:Добротные статьи discussed a proposal from a deletists' leader (who has a medal from other deletists for "improving" quality of Wikipedia by deleting junks) that Wikipedia must have only full articles and all stubs must be deleted and not allowed to be created as low quality "junk" Jimbo, what do you think about that tendency? (Idot (talk) 11:31, 27 June 2014 (UTC))


 * That is a matter for the Russian Wikipedia, not us. The English wiki does not have a bias against stubs just because they are stubs. Tarc (talk) 11:48, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Not so fast Tarc. I had the great pleasure of meeting Sue Gardner at a London meetup. Even back in early 2010 an excessive concern for quality was apparent to the Foundation across all the different languages.  Sue suggested this excessive concern may have originated from English Wikipedia, and to an extent, from Jimbo himself.


 * If I remember correctly,  her exact words were "Once Jimbo began siding with the deletionists on grounds of quality, this sent ripple effects out to the satellite Wikipedias across all the different languages. Projects that were once relaxed and welcoming to newcomers and new content began adopting the same over strict approach as we see on the English wikipedia"  Here is Sue addressing similar themes in one of her later death spiral videos.  It might have made sense to focus on quality before 2010, when the trade offs were less apparent.  With hindsight, it would be most interesting to see whether Jimbo might favor a return to a less critical, more inclusive and tolerant approach? FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:10, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't watched that whole long video but at the beginning anyway she does not say that a "focus on quality" is driving newcomers away, but bots leaving templated warnings and instructions on their talk pages. Are there really people who think that quality is not something to aim for?Smeat75 (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Sadly, yes, there are. Resolute 15:53, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, the idea that stubs should be deleted because they are stubs is nonsense. The stub template exists because stubs have a purpose.  There is a difference between non-notable stubs and notable stubs.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The bias towards destroying stubs is maybe a side issue. It does seem to exist however even on English Wikipedia. Checkout this search for the word "permastub". Often deletionists give being a permastub as a reason to delete even when the subject passes GNG. FeydHuxtable (talk) 15:38, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree with FeydHuxtable. I've seen even many PRODs with the reason "too short". -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 15:45, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe de:wp has a no-stubs policy. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Well there is much to be said on this topic. But the first thing that must be said is that I'm not a deletionist in the sense proposed.  I think a great many stubs can be valuable.  I also think that "permastub" while a not very helpful word, is an effort to reach a valid concept: that while topic X may be a valid topic for a hypothetical encyclopedia with infinite resources, we actually do have finite resources, and we can't responsibly maintain everything.  This is particularly troublesome in the context of BLPs.
 * I very much agree with Sue that bots leaving templated warnings is a very bad thing and we should stop it completely. We could reintroduce it very carefully and slowly but only with serious A/B testing to make sure it isn't causing more harm than good.  But as for right now, it seems clear that it is causing more harm than good.  Of course, it has to be replaced with something, and that something has to be a serious focus on genuine community-building - meeting and greeting newcomers in a friendly and human way, rather than rely on bots warning them.  For that, I think we need some ideas to pass to the developers about better notification mechanisms.  I think lots and lots of people would be willing to take on a couple of newcomers a day, if we had a way to surface the opportunities to them.  For example.  I think this is the route that we should be thinking, and I think that the new direction of the Foundation towards a stronger product and engineering focus and away from some of the kinds of outreach programs that have not proven to be very successful, is an exciting thing.
 * The idea that more quality means less participation is just obviously false. The only way to get more quality is to engage more kind and thoughtful minds.  The way to do that is to welcome them, and to protect them from various kinds of trouble makers, including paid advocates (who have a vested interest in minimizing participation).--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying Jimbo. Couldn't be more enthusiastic about pursuing quality by means of thoughtfulness and kindness. Im halfway through researching a major article rewrite and that's the only reason Im not inspired to go on an immediate newbie welcoming & helping spree.


 * As an example of a model editor who rather than using templates, always writes newbies concise, friendly and easy to understand messages, there is   D r e a m Focus . When Dream can see improving an article with sources would not likely be enough to save it from destruction, he often advises peaceful compromises. Over the years I often click on the contribs of Dream & The Colonel to lift my moral with examples of good sense and kindness, and Dream helps newbies out in this sort of way time after time.


 * While I like recent improvement like VE and the sadly abandoned article feedback tool, your comment about a stronger product and engineering focus was music to the ear.  The stunning early success of Wikipedia, despite its relatively low dev costs, possibly masked the fact that significant further progress in terms of accessibility may not be possible without giving product managers budgets that at least half way compare to those enjoyed at FB/ Twitter etc. Better tech along with a kinder attitude would help ensure Wikipedia achieves its full potential for good. FeydHuxtable (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2014 (UTC)
 * An observation that I saw make recently was that the start of the drop-off in editing figures in 2007 coincides with the appearance of script-assisted editing tools - Huggle and the like. We've all seen "patrollers" script-tagging new articles for deletion within minutes of their creation by new users, and I agree with Kelly that that is specifically one of the worst things to happen to this project. Thoughtless humans leaving templated warnings do far, far more harm than bots. —  Scott  •  talk  09:47, 1 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Whilst agreeing with your concerns about the easiness of tool-clicking making it a literally mindless task, I see the CSD cleanup aspect as being even more damaging than the bill-sticking. We have a regular situation where a NFC (or simply WP-hosted) image is removed from an article, GF or vandalism, and within moments it's then tagged for CSD as unused. There is no attempt to manually check if it ought to be used, or even if there's still a FUR in place pointing to an article from which it has just been vandalised. There is a lot of this (and mostly from the same handful of editors). It's a serious problem where bureaucracy and the opportunity to do more serious admin bizniz has taken over completely from the direction of improving the encyclopedia. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:11, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * "...we actually do have finite resources, and we can't responsibly maintain everything." While this is true it is also misleading.  Specifically the volume of vandalism is not proportional to the amount of content, but to the number of vandals.   Similarly redirects are being deleted with the argument "think of the maintenance" - some of these redirects are 8, 9 or 10 years old and have required zero maintenance in that time.  There are other areas where we do have resource issues, and we are failing to address those.  Sadly my hands are tied in so many ways that I could assist with these issues. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:53, 2 July 2014 (UTC).

Regarding improving Wikipedia's reliability
I've put this at the top of Cancer pain. Since the article went live three years ago, no newbie has edited it or left a comment on the talk page. As its main author (95% of the text) I'm very conscious of my own intellectual and educational shortcomings, and so I'm very conscious of the article's unreliability. I badly want scrutiny and feedback from people with knowledge of the topic, and I hope this invitation to comment will generate some of that.

Some significant moves toward making (at least some of) Wikipedia a reliable, cite-able source:


 * This discussion that began with a regular medical editor quitting due to frustration with the GA or FA process, ended with the adoption of medical A-class articles, which are defined as articles that have passed expert review for accuracy, completeness and weight.


 * User:Johnbod, Wikipedian in residence at Cancer Research UK, has arranged initial peer-review of a number of our cancer-related articles and editors have begun responding to the critiques. Once that process is complete, the articles will be submitted to subject-matter experts (chosen by CRUK) for fact-checking and other review (completeness, weight, etc.).


 * Doc James has submitted a version of Dengue fever to the journal Open Medicine and it has passed their review process and been accepted for publication.


 * User:FloNight, Wikipedian in residence at Cochrane collaboration, is looking for a way for Wikipedia(s) to collaborate with Cochrane medical experts to evaluate the quality of medical articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 10:18, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * I think that reliability should not be our only consideration. Wikipedia should be a broad collection of knowledge that goes beyond what is most broadly accepted.  For example, I would expect this article to address the medicinal use of cannabis and the phenomenon of assisted suicide. Wnt (talk) 16:23, 30 June 2014 (UTC)


 * But you agree it should be a consideration. I, and those editors mentioned in the above bullet points, believe en.Wikipedia should, where possible, be reliable. The best (but still imperfect) model for reliability is the one we use to identify our best sources - independent, rigorous expert review. It's great to see these scholarly bodies helping to make the top Google result for queries on their topic reliable. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)


 * To me, reliability means giving an accurate impression of the degree of support for various ideas, rather than suppressing those that don't have "the best" support. Wnt (talk) 02:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Me too. Though I'd say "degree and nature of support". There is significant lunatic support for the notion that vaccines cause autism. It would be a mistake for Wikipedia to ignore that view, and a mistake not to make very clear the nature of its support.


 * However, you frequently argue we should report insignificant theories and primary studies. I think we must rely on high quality secondary sources to determine the noteworthiness of a theory or finding, not the opinions of anonymous Wikipedians. We need to edit, not just plaster every report we like into articles. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:30, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There's no shortage of editors dismissing this and that as "cruft" in whatever field they care about, but these dismissals are merely an expression of their bias. Remember, the more scientific people in the audience are more interested in the new and still not well proven theories than in the well established medical practice!  If there is reliable sourcing for something, and an editor cares enough about it to edit, the presumption should be that it is worth respecting their effort and keeping the data somewhere.  (Per the usual summary style, that need not be in a top-level medical article)  I've been discussing these things recently at, and as I said there I don't see a very strong distinction between primary and secondary peer-reviewed journal articles; I don't think that this constant focus on "secondary sources" is in line with the levels of evidence actually used by professionals; nor are arbitrary time limits; we should seriously consider reports that suggest company funded research is less reliable (a distinction banned by MEDRS) but not let editors come up with arbitrary lists of journals that you can and can't use (as is discussed at WP:MED currently).  If I imagine the balance of medical opinion as a grand piano we'd like moved up to our Wikipedia residence, then I picture MEDRS Movers sawing off the legs to get it in the door, then cutting it in half to make it up the stairs and tacking it together with roofing nails at the top.  (Or perhaps throwing out the legs because they're insignificant...)  And the thing is... I know WP:MED isn't the Three Stooges.  Have they just gotten that accustomed to working alongside the Three Stooges? Wnt (talk) 04:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is where the subtlety of WP:UNDUE comes in. I saw an interesting programme last night which drew the conclusion that Mrs Beeton covered bottle feeding (vs breast feeding) in detail, because it was complex, not because she wished to promote it, nonetheless the extent of coverage was read as support, arguably resulting in substantial unnecessary infant mortality. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC).


 * WP:Summary style is the answer to that. Also, it seems like a very remote argument in time and space, hard to verify what she or her readers were thinking.  Was she ever popular in the U.S., which also was taken over by the practice of bottle feeding with the ensuing losses? Wnt (talk) 06:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Kelly Martin's observation about script assisted editing is interesting, but another thing that began around 2007 was escalating pressure on IP editors to enroll accounts. Prior to that, according to Aaron Swartz's famous old study, most Wikipedia content was contributed from IP addresses.  With the change came increased factionalization, long term personality conflicts, etc.  It's actually difficult to repeat Aaron's study with current data (I've looked into trying this) because of amount of bot edits cluttering up article histories.  Just saying.  173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:02, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Checklinks question
Jimbo,

I was trying to use the Checklinks tool to see if articles had any dead references, and found the tool is down. Is there anything coming up to replace/repair it? Please let me know.

SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 02:26, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea, actually.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 02:58, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you do find out, just say so. SNUGGUMS (talk · contribs) 03:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This message was left on WP:VPT a couple of days ago by Silke WMDE. Quote:"On July 1st 1:00 am UTC, the Toolserver accounts will be expired and tools which haven’t been migrated yet to Tool Labs will stop working. More information can be found here. To get an overview, we started a collection: Do you miss any tools or have you observed any broken redirects? Would you like to maintain a orphaned tool? If so, please post them here. Thank you very much!"Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 03:37, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi! Anthonyhcole is right: The Toolserver has been shut down yesterday. Not all tools' developers migrated to the new platform Tool Labs. Please add the tools you miss most to the list Anthonyhcole mentioned. There are people around on that page who are willing to bring over some of the missing stuff. Best, Silke WMDE (talk) 10:28, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FYI - there's a discussion about this at Village pump (technical)/Archive 128. GoingBatty (talk) 00:04, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ironic that a couple of days after the above discussion about newcomers being discouraged by bots leaving templated warnings on their talk pages, the DPL bot is now leaving messages on user talk pages "check to confirm", "fix with DAB solver" which when you click on them you are taken to a page which says "dead end" "My tools weren't aligned with the Wikimedia Foundation's priorities, so they didn't make the transition to Labs." which I sort of understand, being a fairly experienced editor, but what a newbie would make of it I don't know. Example .Smeat75 (talk) 02:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Feeding the bears
Ha, yes, the vandals who altered the United States Secretary of Defense to celebrate Tim Howard made me chuckle too as I stepped in with my mop to help clean up the mess, but why did you have to publicly celebrate the vandalism? Even with your disclaimer, it will only encourage the next wave of vandals who also want to make national headlines to target more popular articles. Or, far worse, see how long they can get away with vandalizing little-watched articles (like this bit of damage I discovered nearly 11 months after it was done). Parks put up "do not feed the bears" signs because feeding the bears only encourages them to come around more often, placing campers in greater danger. Praising the vandals, even the clever ones, is like feeding the bears. - Dravecky (talk) 06:35, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with you. I've struggled with this in the past and often decided not to comment at all.  Being dour and sour isn't really the Wikipedia way, but feeding the bears is a bad idea too. :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've saved the funny version in case anybody wants to have a look, User:Jehochman/United States Secretary of Defense. It might be good is to teach people to copy pages into userspace, and then make humorous edits. Jehochman Talk 14:49, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Would it not make more sense to just post a link to the diff of the "funny" version rather than creating a copyvio fork in your userspace? At the very least, put an edit in pointing to the original for proper attribution. Resolute 22:27, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * One final note on this: the bear, uh, editor who made the "famous" edits is proud of his work and the recognition and not at all remorseful. - Dravecky (talk) 00:24, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunate demise
I wonder if you ever used the Reflinks tool?

It was widely used, widely respected, widely referred to, and helped improve the quality of WIkipedia's referencing against vulnerability to linkrot as well as enhancing the look and feel of the references, and pretty much ensuring our readership could track down or check references easily.

At midnight on 30 June it died, causing those many of us who found it of tremendous value to wail and gnash our teeth. It died because reports suggest its creator was unable or unwilling to migrate the tool from Toolserver. I have no interest in the reasons behind the death, but I hope to influence you to investigate from WMF's position the best way of reviving or replacing this tool.

For some things we cannot just rely upon the wisdom of crowds. Sometimes we have to consider spending money. Fiddle  Faddle  13:10, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Who was the creator of that tool, anyway? If there was ever someone who deserved a barnstar for providing such a service...    Anyway, hopefully a solution can be found as it was a very valuable tool. Resolute 13:37, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It has reappeared, now migrated. I have no idea if this is a temporary solution or permanent. I only found out because I had not removed the code from my code place and clicked it absent mindedly. Fiddle   Faddle  14:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another reason Wikipedia should not be allowed to depend on closed source infrastructure code. All such tools (bots etc). should only be allowed to run from WMF-hosted publicly-readable repositories, so they can always be ported/forked/whatever if the original maintainer becomes unavailable.  173.228.123.145 (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what Toollabs is. What we're experiencing now is the painful transition. Resolute 22:23, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Toollabs requires publicly accessible code? That's good to hear, as Toolserver didn't require it.  I wonder if any Toolserver users have quit over that (if they did, I don't care).  Meanwhile we still have tons of closed-source bots running from the bot programmer's own machines instead of from Toollabs.  That should also stop as it has resulted in recurring headaches when the operator has issues and the bot can't be smoothly handed over to a new operator.  Plus there are many unauthorized bots messing things up, not only from over-enthusiastic editors who think they are doing good, but now from flat-out abusers such as spammers.  That should be stopped at the server side if the bot is not running from Toollabs. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 02:49, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Annual "Silly Season" post
Already rather silly edits are being made, especially to BLPs of political figures (including such massively important trivia as music preferences etc. of possible candidates for office). IMHO, the use of BLPs for campaign purposes is one of the vilest of uses of Wikipedia, and the practice has gotten so widespread that it might be better to simply protect all such articles for the duration of "silly season" than to fend off the drive-by edits. Wikipedia should not be used for political purposes, period. Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I take it you're aggrieved about Rubio and Tupak Shakur . How was that an attempt at campaigning??  As for "silly season" -- you use that term a lot, and I'm curious: when (in your view) isn't it "silly season"?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:57, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually it is an annual post. I do find it useless to give Rubio's musical tastes in a BLP, but it is far from the most egregious example.  We have the annual edits calling people Nazis and the like showing up already.  Usually "silly season" is from about the start of July until the second week in November in major election years -- when would you find the most campaigning likely to occur on Wikipedia?  Rubio has been labelled as "Christian" instead of "Catholic",  political campaigning,     and simple irrelevancies to a BLP.   The same types of edits occur in NZ and UK political articles - it is not just a US phenomenon.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:19, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But how was it "campaigning" to add something re Tupak Shakur? I'm not saying it was a good edit -- but how was it "campaigning"?  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:06, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read what I actually wrote -- I said the music bit was "useless." Saying I said something I did not say is actually worse than "useless".  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * But darling I did read what you wrote -- "use of BLPs for campaign purposes", right after "music preferences" and following a revert by you on Rubio re Tupak Shakur. So once again: how was the edit you reverted "campaigning" (or, more precisely, "campaign purposes")?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um -- first of all, drop the idiotic cutesy-pie "darling" as it is of no rational civil use on Wikipedia. Second read my effing post.  This faux umbrage game is of nil value whatsoever on your part.  Collect (talk) 14:42, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There's no "umbrage", false or otherwise -- just curiosity. But if you didn't mean it, then never mind…  Nomoskedasticity (talk) 15:03, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Let's keep some perspective. I don't know whether there is any value in ranking the vileness of Wikipedia edits, but if we did so, I am sure that my list would have many things ahead of adding a music preference to a BLP of a political figure. I've deleted an attack page and several copyvios in the last few minutes, both of which rank higher. THat said, we can debate, what, if anything ought to be done, without having to do a ranking. This is clearly not the right place to propose a new policy, although I grant that ascertaining whether Jimbo is supportive is a useful piece of information. If you are serious, and not simply frustrated, VPI is a good place to discuss such an idea. Not WP:VPP, it isn't yet ready.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  15:22, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ,,  etc. are specifically "campaign edits" AFAICT.  The Rubio edit basically sourced to videos and gossip mags is just simple trivia at best.   Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:15, 2 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I am not averse to the notion that we should afford special consideration to edits of articles about political figures. But I would like to see a proper case made. You are suggesting preemptive protection. The community generally has rejected such suggestions. I don't automatically reject it, but in view of the historical community norms, it requires some careful homework to make a case for restriction of our usual mandate to allow editing to be as open as possible. An incomplete list of issues to address;
 * Define the time frame. It used to run Labor day to election day in even numbered years in the US. I grant that it is longer now, but I fear it is has extended to be virtually all times. A tightly restricted time period is easier to accept than an open period.
 * Define the targets. Is this a US only issue? All offices, or only "major"?
 * Define the protection. Semi? Why not Pending Changes?
 * I hope my listing of questions here does not provoke answers here. If addressed, it should be in a proper place. This is a good place to get some general feedback, but if you want to make a proper proposal, there are better venues.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  16:36, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Time frame: July 1 to November 15th (latest) in election years (for foreign elections more typically from date election is called until election occurs - say ~3 months in many cases).  Stop IP edits with semi-protection or PC (did that ever get officially settled? <g>).  Suggest that "opinion stuff" be kept to a minimum  (including stuff from campaign sites and pamphlets), and not have "single issue campaign issue articles" created on political candidates.    It covers candidates and campaigns in general, and for differing times it also applies to many foreign campaigns and candidates.  And it basically includes all offices -- some of the most egregious defamations occur for local offices. And ("If I were King of the Forest ..."  - movie allusion for those who never heard the term) I would stop the "allegations of possible criminal activity" stuff which creeps in every election season.  The Wikipedia deadline does not require we include such stuff in material falling under WP:BLP and I would suggest that COI be emended to include political campaign workers, as they can provide a very pernicious effect on any article.  Too much? Collect (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Terrible idea. If Wikipedia can be used to provide timely information useful for voters, that is not a bug.  And from the encyclopedic point of view, we do far better by allowing people to update biographies when their subjects are in the news and they are deciding how to vote than by asking them to hold off until they drop from their awareness (and Google's News search) then ask them to reconstruct their research.  Even if we made the sacrifice of being out of date and losing editor interest, I am not even convinced that we would avoid POV or vandal edits better anyway, because fewer people would be reading and scrutinizing the articles in the off season.  Just because you can make up some cute phrase like "silly season" does not mean you get to abolish the core mission or assert, without statistical evidence, that things are different during an arbitrarily defined period of time.  Oh, and why the heck shouldn't we document a biography subject's musical preferences, if reliable sources saw fit to print them? Wnt (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Silly season, is established usage, though somewhat different form the OPs. and in the US it has almost precisely this pre-elction meaning Silly season. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:32, 2 July 2014 (UTC).


 * I have volunteered in U.S. political campaigns for 45 years, and the only person I have ever heard use the phrase "silly season" is, who seems to think that it has enormous persuasive power. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, at least around Wikipedia parts, it is a common expression by no means limited to Collect. I don't know of any academic studies of the phenomenon, but anecdotally it does seem to be true that in the run up to elections (not just in the US) there is a greater tendency to see newcomers show up (either campaign workers or just excited members of the general public) to disparage or praise candidates.  I'm not 100% sure that the Tupac/Rubio edit counts, though, as I'm having a hard time understanding if it is a positive or negative.  Perhaps that's because of my own horrific and embarrassing musical tastes. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:42, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * (ec)I did not coin the term at all. It is found in British dictionaries as well.   It was ancient when Brewer mentioned it in 1895 - though usually it referred to "fluff"  while Parliament was not is session.   For modern usage see,  , in Britain.  Urban Dictionary  Political silly season. In politics, the time, especially just before the election, when undeliverable promises and wild accusations are the order.,    showing widespread US usage.    used by Barack Obama in 2007.     Used in the New York times from 1865 on.   1874 for "political silly season."  Unless I am on the order of two hundred years old, I did not coin the term.   Nor did I create several hundred thousand usages of the term.   That an editor does not know a term does not mean the other editor created it <g>. Collect (talk) 12:58, 3 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Very common term here in the UK - and at the moment, obscure Merkian politicians are getting touch ups to their BLP's left right and centre. -Roxy the dog (resonate) 13:25, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I note the Farage BLP has had edits on the order of Nigel Farage is responsible for promoting hate against Romanians in the UK., Nigel Farage is a colossal racist   and the like (and I doubt he is the only victim in UK political BLPs.)    The problem is quite international is scope, and the horrid fact is that actual official campaign workers are and have been  active on Wikipedia. Collect (talk) 13:33, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I neither thought nor said that you coined the term,, but instead observed that in my experience, the term is not common political parlance in the United States, even if Obama said it in 2007. I agree with you 100% that political biographies are subject to an increased risk of promotional or derogatory edits during campaign season. But a media controversy can and does trigger that crap at any time. The same is true of bios of top ranked college athletes at the time of a professional draft, starlets when a new film is being released, tech start-ups when an IPO is imminent, and so on. If specific articles are being messed with, protect those specific articles. But I oppose blanket pre-emptive protection of an entire class of articles. Silly season, after all, is 365.25 days a year, every year. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been in common usage in the US for a hundred and fifty years or more.  Hundreds of thousands of usages, in fact.  That you had not known it is not particularly relevant, alas.  And the issue includes deliberate usage of Wikipedia for political campaigns - which is rather a different category than your examples of college athletes.   Yes -- sports figures also have trivia in articles, but those articles do not have national political impact.    Such usage is damaging to Wikipedia and to the political process and thus should be dealt with rather than covering our heads with blankets.   And some of the "controversies" are contrived by campaign workers, and they routinely abuse Wikipedia to promote them.  Collect (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Common usage in the US? Hardly. I'll give you the possibility of traditional and conservative East Coast or even the South, but West of the Rockies? The term is never used.  Like Cullen says above, I'm also familiar with American politics, and the term is considered obscure, if not antiquated in the extreme.  It is not in common usage at this time. Viriditas (talk) 02:15, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Los Angeles Times - including, Vancouver Canada , etc.   "Never hearing of something" which is this common a usage is not a sign that it is not in common usage - only that the person has not noticed it.  Cheers -- but the anecdotal denial that it is common fails when sources are provided otherwise.  As for "antiquated in the extreme" - that is "right out."  Collect (talk) 04:40, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It certainly seems like a silly term, because American political news is silly all year round. Literally, the closest thing we have to fair and in-depth analysis of the issues on television are performances by stand-up comedians.  But none of this argues that Wikipedia should strive to some sort of monastic purity in how we present the information that is not sustained by how we obtained it.  All we should be doing is harvesting and presenting the information that is out there - it's like agriculture.  You don't send a truck of migrants out to pick an orchard of juice oranges and expect them to come back with jumbo navels.  Anyone who pretends to be "improving" the product by carving what he thinks looks like a little navel into each orange is not actually helping. Wnt (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ? Collect (talk) 18:54, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * We're only as good as our sources. We can't improve on the information by cutting out what someone thinks is 'trivial' any more than you can improve a document by photocopying it.  All we can do by that means is to lose information. Wnt (talk) 19:16, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In short -- you believe that adding campaign pamphlets to BLPs of politicians is reasonable. I demur.   Just as I do not believe advertising of any kind - for or against any person or product belongs on Wikipedia.  Period.   As for "cutting out material"  I suggest you look at Joseph Widney after cutting, and Joseph Widney before cutting Collect (talk)

I am completely opposed to Wikipedia biographies being transformed into "campaign pamphlets" and routinely support deleting articles about unelected candidates. But mass protection of many thousands of articles is not a good solution. That tool needs to be used like a scalpel, not like a sledgehammer. Thanks for trimming and improving the article about Widney,. But as he wasn't a political candidate and has been dead for exactly 76 years, I don't see the relevance to this discussion. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  04:54, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The reference was concerning a claim by one editor here that we should include every imaginable fact in articles. I pointed out that one of my GAs only became one by pruning, not by expansion (which I understand is a very rare method of getting a GA).    And I would note that I have supported PC for all BLPs in the past, and continue to do so.  This is not a "sledgehammer" - it is a pragmatic solution to an all-too-real problem which we see each year. Collect (talk) 11:51, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't try to analyze all the changes between the versions, but on the second try I found an important section that had disappeared from the Joseph Widney example you gave: the part about his anti-Chinese activism. The original article quoted some of his comments in this regard; it was sourced offline but I reverified them at .  I will admit that if this had been a contemporary politician I would have suspected this was a political whitewash, but in this context I may need some other explanation.  I found no discussion of this on the Talk Page (thanks to a search, I eventually did manage to find the archived talk page, a tiny "/1" floating around loose under the introductory headers).  In any case, the original version clearly had some problems with its organization (a lot of headers containing "as" or "and") but my approach to a disorganized article is to fix the organization first, then spin off the most obscure parts to a separate article if it's really necessary. Wnt (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Probability of COI or PAE among WMF visitors
Closing per JoeSperrazza (talk) 16:29, 3 July 2014 (UTC) Jimbo, if you took a sample of all the businesses and organizations that sent representatives to visit the Wikimedia Foundation headquarters in person, of those entities that have a Wikipedia article, what percentage of those articles do you think would have evidence of substantial conflict of interest or paid advocacy editing present in the revision history (regardless of whether or not that content endures in the current article)? Would you say less than 10%, between 10% and 25%, between 26% and 50%, between 51% and 75%, between 76% and 90%, or more than 90%? - 2001:558:1400:10:C2:2B3:2D1A:CB69 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton
Did you know there's big,big love from a single user towards Ernest Shackleton that is threatening the neutral point of view of all depictions of the history of antarctic exploration?--37.230.17.60 (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Robert Falcon Scott
Quite similar to the love towards Ernest Shackleton that has already been mentioned, the same person that has been adulating Ernest Shackleton on all Wikipedias has substituted the portrait photograph of his rival Robert Falcon Scott used on all Wikipedias around the world

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/62/Scott_of_the_Antarctic_crop.jpg

with this one:

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Falcon_Scott#mediaviewer/Datei:RFScott.jpg

...--37.230.17.60 (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Information on Wikipedia in North Korea
Dorood! I read a week or so ago on your talk page about North Korea, and I was very interested to read about your information on Wikipedia being used in North Korea by teenagers to do their homework. It is very interesting to me, as I too live in a country which sees strict censorship of information, although not as bad as in the so-called Hermit Kingdom. I have added this information to the "Education in North Korea" article, it will certainly be interesting information for Wikipedia readers. Any more information you can add to this would be fantastic; I would like to hear more about it.

Also, congratulations to you and your fantastic country on it's most auspicious of days. I am sure you are very proud of your country, and your country of you. You both have much to be proud of. Kodafez, Muhammed 151.245.61.39 (talk) 20:38, 4 July 2014 (UTC)


 * So, assuming this is a troll, does anybody have any idea how an IP address can be made to appear to come from North Korea or Iran like this? It's a pretty nifty stunt. Carrite (talk) 20:48, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Dorood Jimmy. It would appear that User:Smallbones didn't like my edit to that article for some reason. I hope it isn't because he has a problem with you personally or doesn't believe you said those words. The onus is on editors who wish to remove neutrally worded, sourced information into articles to state why. I am not too sure why, because he didn't leave an edit summary or hasn't discussed it. Such reverts discourage editors such as myself from editing the encyclopedia, and some might see it as disruptive. Perhaps Smallbones can explain why he has removed this information from the article. I will revert him in the meantime.

Jimmy, I look forward to hearing more from you on the North Korea USB story, it is very interesting to many of us, especially to editors such as myself here in Iran. I will check in again when I go back to the net cafe, as this connection is expensive to use for internet. Kodafez, Muhammed 130.255.249.227 (talk) 00:02, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This might be a swell time to sing one of my favorite songs again: Wikipedia needs to ban IP editing, to require real name registration from a verifiable email address, and to require sign-in-to-edit. There is no way to actually ban tech savvy people from Wikipedia, true fact. Carrite (talk) 04:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You're describing Citizendium, which works more or less like that. If you like that model better, why aren't you there instead of here?  Some people do prefer it, but a lot more (apparently including you) seem to like Wikipedia better, so Citizendium is in near-collapse.  A famous definition of insanity is repeating the same action and expecting a different result.   Veropedia (same idea only different) is of course long gone.  And weren't you saying a few days ago that WMF should indemnify editors against lawsuits from readers who don't like our articles?  They are never going to do that, so are you SURE you want to submit your real-name info and then edit those kinds of articles?   It seems to me that would make our articles' neutrality and accuracy much easier to compromise. 173.228.123.145 (talk) 07:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Requiring verifiable real-world identification would surely alienate all those who live under authoritarian regimes and prevent their contributing to the project, wouldn't it? — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Our new friend in Iran may have done this. Just saying.-- ♦Ian Ma c M♦  (talk to me) 14:44, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Dorood Jimmy, I now back at an internet cafe. I guess you haven't replied due to the weekend, which I hope you are enjoying, but I do hope you will find the time to at least say hello in the near future.

Jimmy, I see the information I put in the article was removed and a discussion has taken place where User:Johnuniq seems intent on removing your information out to the article. He seems to have a problem with you for some reason. I have acceded to his requests, and have added more information to the article. I will place it here for you too. "In December 2013, Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales told Danish publication Ingeniøren that the Korean Wikipedia has for some time been smuggled into North Korea on USB sticks and stated teenagers in the North would use the Korean language encyclopedia to do their homework.[4] In January 2014, a much publicized launch of balloons by North Koreans defectors in the South contained money and leaflets, along with 1,500 USB sticks which were pre-loaded with the Korean Wikipedia.[5] A similar launch in October 2013 led the North Korean government to state that they would not tolerate such acts and would "wipe out the provokers with merciless firing" and referred to campaigners as "human scum".[5] In February 2014, Park Sang-hak, whose group Freedom Fighters of North Korea was behind the January balloon launch, travelled to California where he met with Silicon Valley entities in an attempt to get assistance in making the balloon launches more successful. Amongst the groups he met were lawyers from the Electronic Frontier Foundation and engineers from the Wikimedia Foundation.[6]"

Jimmy, this information is very interesting. There are many inferences one could draw from it, the most obvious being that either you or the Wikimedia Foundation are directly involved in the smuggling of Korean Wikipedia into North Korea. If this is the case, I don't know about the legalities of such things, but anything which helps North Korean people to gain free knowledge is a great thing, even if it means being complicit in the breaching of North Korea's sovereignty by sending balloons into their territory. You and the WMF should be commended for taking this firm stance! Kodafez, Muhammed 2.187.146.210 (talk) 17:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Commons opens door to welcome undisclosed paid editing.
The initial draft of this policy was restricted to uploads, which made sense, but somewhere along the way the wording was changed to "contributions". Now paid editors can participate in policy matters as well. Until this point I was a strong believer Commons was headed in the right direction. Now I am left shaking my head. Saffron Blaze (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I too had no problem with not disclosing that photos were being uploaded by people with a financial interest in doing so, e.g. professional photographers. But the changed wording is extremely problematic since it says (by omission) that policy and guidelines can be edited by paid editors, even editors who are being paid to edit that particular policy. As a non-profit, the WMF cannot allow the policy of its projects to be bought and sold.
 * The change in wording was made after almost half the !votes were in and folks began asking for a snow-close. One editor says that this was the work of  and Russavia - can anybody track this down?
 * The question is what to do about it? I'll suggest an RfC first, to change it back to just photo uploads.  But it should be stated upfront that that is not the only step that might be taken.
 * This problem is not unique to Commons. There is a sentence in WP:COI stating that "Any editor who discusses proposed changes to WP:COI or to any conflict of interest policy or guideline, should disclose in that discussion if he or she has been paid to edit on Wikipedia."  An administrator, who has bragged on this (Jimbo's) talkpage that he has done paid editing - has refused to make that disclosure on the COI talk page, even after he was gently reminded of the requirement.  He is proposing that the ToU disclosure requirements be removed,and I believe it would be relevant to everybody participating to know that he is a paid admin.  Smallbones( smalltalk ) 14:34, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When another editor raised the point, he hatted it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:04, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * you said "As a non-profit, the WMF cannot allow the policy of its projects to be bought and sold." but surely you realise the WMF already did this themselves when they sold their name, and everything the projects supposedly stand for, when they endorsed the paid-editing position at Belfer, which essentially saw pro-US government propaganda being inserted into the encyclopedia. 176.61.24.55 (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Same ol' BS from the same ol' paid editors. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 21:30, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Concerns about the WMF are inherently valid. So are concerns about editors and especially administrators who themselves are or were paid editors, and are now participating in the process. Regulatory capture exists at the federal level and is a concern here at the micro level. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 15:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, but dragging every discussion off onto some tangent about the big bad hypocritical WMF is just fucking annoying. Saffron Blaze (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree that it derailed this discussion. However, I'm not sure this is the correct venue for a detailed discussion of the editor Smallbones mentions, and have commenced a discussion at COI/N.Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 17:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * This is how childish it gets: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Requests_for_comment/Alternative_paid_contribution_disclosure_policy Saffron Blaze (talk) 15:57, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Reddit IAmA
Hey Jimmy - I was wondering if you'd be interested in hosting an AMA (Ask Me Anything) session at http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/? For a brief overview, an AMA involves you posting something along the lines of "I am Jimmy Wales, founder of Wikipedia: AMA". Users then post questions, upvote/downvote them, and you'd have the pleasure of answering the questions (preferably the most popular ones).

I believe the last time you were asked on your talk page was back in 2011, and you didn't show much interest. Seeing that you've since posted a bit on reddit (most notably by making comments on /r/Bitcoin), I think hosting an IAmA would be a nice chance to discuss Wikimedia, answer questions, and hell, maybe even spark some interest with potential editors/donators. I don't doubt that there'll be strong interest there. Thanks, ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 05:42, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * (talk page stalker) If you have the time Jimbo I would love to see it too. I'd love to see both what is asked and your responses :-) <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  07:43, 4 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes I might do that. I've sort of been looking for an appropriate time when I've got something in particular to say.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * If you choose to do so, Jimbo, I truly hope that it goes smoothly and that the well-known trolls who dog your every step take a day off that day. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:02, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no doubt there'll be at least a few of these trolls showing up, but with the number of people who will be asking questions and the upvoting/downvoting of peoples' questions, I doubt there'll be much problem at all. ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 03:40, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

about maintenance and deleters
"'permastub' while a not very helpful word, is an effort to reach a valid concept: that while topic X may be a valid topic for a hypothetical encyclopedia with infinite resources, we actually do have finite resources, and we can't responsibly maintain everything --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)" please do not forget deleters are not maintainers! they neither maintain articles nor improve it they just delete it! let me prove how you completely a wrong Jumbo! WikiProject Astronomy in ru-wiki ru:Проект:Астрономия has only 2 (two!) active members for hundreds of articles! and of cause they are not enough to maintain articles, while deleters cannot help to maintaining, 'coz they just do not have necessary knowledge of astronomy! don't you suggest Jimbo that all the articles of astronomy should be deleted for better maintenance, do you? by the way: before deleters annexed wikipedia, the project used to have ten active members, and the situation with its' maintenance was much better, as ten people could few times better maintain articles than two, so deleters did not improved maintenance as they claim and proud, in fact they make people who can maintain articles to leave wikipedia, which is not achieving neither goal of maintenance nor achieving of quality (Idot (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC))
 * Obviously Jumbo can speak for himself, but removing things that should not be here is an important part of maintaining the encyclopedia. — Alan / Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 14:46, 5 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are few things on earth more tedious than a person who feels the need to repeat the same tired refrain again and again and again and again. I am quite certain that anybody who watches this page understands your viewpoint regarding the deletion of content.  If you have a productive idea, why not go to a village pump and propose it? Resolute 15:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is a valid viewpoint. Only in the last few days a number of established editors.   They forget, perhaps, how successful the RamBot creations were (and indeed many many other hundreds of stub creators products).  The en:WP community is generally against most attempts to create additional hurdles to article creation, and for good reason: for example this stub would fail almost every content or citation based rule I have seen proposed, but became a vital article.   We can have sympathy for those working on Wikis where suchseed are not allowed to bloom.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 00:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC).


 * A viewpoint is fine, but it doesn't resolve anything. There are also people who think redlinks are better than stubs. Simply saying "deletionists have ruined Wikipedia" again and again doesn't really accomplish anything other than being able to pretend that another way would have been better (it's possible that an every expanding wikipedia would have been spread too thin and lost users as well). Is there a particular policy change that would be reversed? Me, I'm support strong enforcement of T3 and the elimination of more complex template scheme (especially those used to store content under the guise of "new users can't be trusted and they won't be able to figure out what we're doing") as I think that does way more to discourage new users (who often get bot-warned) from their ability to edit the wiki. I think we went too far in the "fight against vandalism" view versus encouraging testing. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It could be that we would do better if we "advised" new users instead of "warning" them. Cultural changes like this can be hard to implement, and the rewards (if any) are slow in coming, but it seems to me worthwhile.  What do you think? All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC).

Amazing bit of work here
I was just doing a Random article run, coming upon the strangest out-of-anyone's-way islands and tiny ferns and Villages which had ten residents who likely all up and left years ago, when it suddenly crossed my mind to ask you if you are still amazed ever so often (or always) at what you've done. To have created, jumpstarted, and maintained this collection of talented people who are both educating the world and expanding their personal universes of knowledge with every edit. If almost everybody is proud of their own bits and bytes here, and of course they are (except for the most depressingly downcast among them) how must you feel? And do you still feel it? Nice work. Randy Kryn 16:12 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Russia and the Internet
So the Russian parliament (lower house of) has approved a bill requiring web companies to store Russian citizens' data in Russia. BBC FT (paywalled) What would the implications of this be for Wikimedia? Selective storage of Russian data could be difficult for the WMF(?), but unless they did they would be able to block Wikipedia etc. Any Russia-watchers got an insight for us? How likely is it this law will actually be passed/implemented? BethNaught (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't think WMF stores any personal data of the type contemplated in that article.  173.228.123.145 (talk) 23:08, 5 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just off the top of my head - implementing this rule would be a nightmare not just for tech companies, but for the Russian government, so it won't be systematically implemented. Strongly implementing the rule would ultimately force Russians off the internet, and they would have to make their own version.  Russian citizens wouldn't put up with that.  What would likely happen is, as was said in the FT, it “will be used as a bargaining point" with tech companies (and others), and it could be used as an excuse to close down parts of the internet temporarily  in cases of civil unrest or election challenges.  So it could be used to create major hassles at times. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 03:42, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the entire point? See Splinternet. Viriditas (talk) 06:07, 6 July 2014 (UTC)


 * As others have said, it seems unlikely to affect us very much, as we don't really store personal data at all. The devil is in the details, of course, so it is possible that things like usernames/passwords or ip addresses could be regarded as "personal data".  It is extremely unlikely that we would respond to this by starting to store that data in Russia, although again, the devil is in the details.
 * It's important to realize the propaganda coup the disastrous spying policies of the NSA have handed to authoritarian governments worldwide. They can push through laws clearly designed to tighten control over their citizens, on the premise of protecting them from the NSA, and the public in Russia is likely to have some sympathy.  After all, the Brazilians (who appear to have little authoritarian aims at all) are heading down the same path.  It's a disaster for an open and free and neutral Internet, an Internet of the world.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In the EU it is unambiguous that an IP address is personal data the moment someone uses an IP address to dervive a profile of a user UK laws kicks so any us by CUs or the activities outlined in the recent Privacy Policy, that you and the other board members signed off on, will bring you under UK law and the law of most other EU countries. No doubt Russia and other countries will take similar attitudes. Given that this site engaged in political activity in 2012, and also recently in Russia, one is hardly surprised if the Russian state treats WP as political opponents in some way or another. John lilburne (talk) 11:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In addition to John's comments above, the EU has strict rules about trafficking 'Personal Data' outside of the EU. The implications when it comes to non-EU checkusers are obvious. Especially now the WMF seems insistant on not running any checks on who has access to personal data. Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think that even here we see people trying to tie their agendas (however sensible) to whatever regulation they might make - that indeed is the problem, that it is a vague policy that will be used for whatever its implementers wish to use it for. But I doubt they will be asking us for ideas -- I'd sooner expect it would have to do with inconvenient data in articles about Putin's associates.  What's missing here is an understanding of the interplay between the two forces one expects -- bureaucrats declaring blocks on Wikipedia or portions thereof, and the unmarked "tourists" that one would expect to come into Wikipedia and implement their goals under a cloak of intimidation.  So please, someone who actually is involved in Russian Wikipedia, tell us how things unfolded regarding the last ban actions so we know more of what to expect! Wnt (talk) 17:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, this is something both I and Elen of the Roads@undefined have raised with Arbcom. As far as I know we were both ignored.  All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 01:30, 7 July 2014 (UTC).


 * Jimbo, I am adding that quote above to my talk page. I couldn't agree with you more. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  08:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would wait until some legal precedents of applying the new Russian law and/or official instruction of its application would become available. It is not very likely that they would block all sites that stores users IPs/emails (it would essentially block all the non-Russian internet) and this is basically the only personal information we store. At any rate as far as I know the law does not forbid accessing the personal information from abroad but it requires storing copies of all the personal information on Russian territory making it available to the Government authorities. That creates a serious danger to all Russian editors who ever edited anything not in tune to the official propaganda. To the best of my knowledge so far nobody in Russia was persecuted for editing Wikipedia, but since 2012 the human rights situation in Russia deteriorates almost every day, thus, it is quite possible that in a year or two Russian editors might be persecuted for their edits. So I think that we should ensure that no personal information on Russian users is stored on Russian turf. If it means that Russian users would be forced to use Tor or other anonimysers to access Wikipedia - so be it. Alex Bakharev (talk) 06:27, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Regarding the recent BBC article in the opening message, it seems like this news about the Duma legislation was reported a few months ago:
 * "The State Duma passed legislative changes earlier this week requiring social media websites to keep their servers in Russia and store users' information for six months, restrictions that some observers speculate could lead to conflicts with foreign sites such as Facebook, Gmail and Skype, and even to the blocking of access to these sites in Russia." —
 * --Bob K31416 (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reference Search
User:Nicolas1981/Wikipedia Reference Search has information about Wikipedia Reference Search, a search engine designed to return only results from websites considered to be reliable. —Wavelength (talk) 20:22, 7 July 2014 (UTC)


 * It doesn't look like there have been any suggested additions to that list in more than 5 years. This aside from the question whether it is either possible or desirable to compile a list of "good sites." Carrite (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it'd work. i mean, look at the computing articles. most of the sources are computing blogs, whereas articles in other areas typically don't use blogs hardly at all. however, if we didn't for computing articles, there's be nothing left of many of the articles. -- Aunva6talk - contribs  03:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Editors are free to use any tool they like to find sources, but overreliance on any particular list will impose biases and lead to fights over which biases to include. I imagine entries like "army.mil", "marxists.org", and "wwe.com" raise some eyebrows.  The omission of so many excellent newspapers from around the world, such as the Times of India, should worry us more.  This is very prone to be used as a vehicle for cultural imperialism. Wnt (talk) 12:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * As a marxists.org volunteer, that's an excellent non-commercial, copyright-observing site — BUT it's it's probably 80% or more primary documents and maybe 20% commentary (just making those numbers up, but you get the point). Now, primary sources are fine for WP IF used in moderation, IF not used tendentiously, IF used appropriately. But that's hardly something that we should give an unreserved green light to use, which this "white list" does. Moreover, the photos there would not fly because everything is presented on a "fair use" basis. Some are clear due to age, some are murky and subject to take-down in the unlikely event that a rightsholder objected. The problem with such a homogenizing tool, a device which claim to automatically decide for us what may or may not be used as a source, is that it acts to take away honest editorial decision-making, while at the same time empowering POV warriors to cherry-pick favored "spun" content from so-called "reliable sources." The world is grey; the very last thing we need is a universal internet white list for WP sourcing... Carrite (talk) 17:31, 8 July 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

There is a new tool: Have a look at the video! --Atlasowa (talk) 13:47, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Noor Nawaz (MSc Student), Andrea Bunt (Faculty Member): Recommending Reference Materials in Context to Facilitate Editing Wikipedia,
 * "a really keen idea -- and perhaps the door is now open for *somebody* to translate the research?"

Transcripts
There has been some significant recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost regarding which WMF entity, if any, would be the appropriate location to host transcripts of audio-visual materials for the hard of hearing and others. Would the foundation have any opimnions on this matter? John Carter (talk) 18:01, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't know if the Foundation staff have any view, but in my view all of the options given is probably fine. Wikinews, Commons, Wikisource.  If local policies in any of those places would tend to suggest that the transcripts should not be hosted there, then those policies should be changed.
 * Quite separately, I am sad to see the abuse you and others got in that discussion from User:Tony1. His outburst was sad to see and completely out of line.  I hope that you don't take it too badly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimmy, before you leap to conclusions, in particular framing me as an enemy of hearing-impaired people, you might take time to examine the more general occurrence of abuse surrrounding that issue. I can't leave your casual comment standing as an accusation. I have emailed you in case you feel you need information. Tony   (talk)  12:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I didn't frame you as an enemy of hearing-impaired people, and I didn't jump to conclusions. Your behavior in that thread was inappropriate and several people have told you this.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You used the word "abuse", which you've now toned down to "inappropriate". Out of context you singled me out as a perpetrator of "abuse", and your comment could be taken only as reducing me. There's a much larger context in which abuse was one way against me—among it it violent and sexualised attacks in public. Someone under continual attack for many days might be forgiven for being brittle and defensive. By the end I was severely depressed. Kicking someone when they're down is dishonourable. Tony   (talk)  02:00, 11
 * All any interested editor needs to do is read the relevant discussions, where it will become clear to reasonable people that Jimbo's comments were accurate and fair. Tony, I encourage you to do your best to calm down. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  02:31, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I had arranged for three improvements to the transcript—one of them stubstantial—so that it would be more accurate and a better experience for those who wanted to link to it from the top of the talk page. So you can imagine that it was very frustrating to continue to receive complaints from you and others, Cullen, and now Mr Wales, a nearly two weeks later. Don't tell me to calm down when during this period I've been abused with sexualised and violent imagery, and my private medical information was splattered on my talkpage and that of another editor that took nearly a day to OS. Tony   (talk)  06:07, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you are talking about here and no one else reading the relevant discussions will either, as those discussions and the accounts of all other parties paint a very different story. If someone posted something inappropriate about you, I am sorry but knew nothing about it. What I saw and what the record shows is that you lashed out with extreme hostility and an overtly threatening manner at anyone who disagreed with your personal interpretation of how the matter should be handled. Again, I encourage you to calm down and get your emotions under control. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Have it your way, but my view is very different; and you might like to get your emotions under control rather than belittle me. Tony   (talk)  08:05, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * For reference, it looks like the conflict started here. My impression is that it was something that built up and spiraled out of control, like a hurricane.  --Bob K31416 (talk) 15:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

France planning to censor "hate propaganda"
A current news article mentions in passing that The new legislation, to be presented to parliament “in the coming days”, will also make it easier to target “lone wolves” and create new powers to force internet providers to block Islamist hate propaganda. Because it is an appropriate role of Commons and Wikisource to host notable works that advocate or defend Islamist or other partisan violence, and for Wikipedia articles to link to such works when we are prevented by copyright from hosting them directly, this may be of significant concern. Can anyone explain more about what is proposed, and does Wikimedia have any connections to try to (at least) preserve the right of French readers to access materials here? We should have no sympathy for the sort of policy which when enforced has such predictable effects. Wnt (talk) 18:10, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I know a little bit about this because I watch French news. It's a law proposed by Bernard Cazeneuve, the French home secretary, which would allow authorities to block sites promoting terrorism extra-judicially. It's a little confusing, because Cazeneuve has been talking in the media about blocking "hate propaganda", but commentators say that this actually has nothing to do with the text of the proposed law, which is just about incitement to terrorism (already a distinct concept in French law). Without commenting on whether this is a good or a bad proposal, it doesn't particularly seem to break new ground compared to other countries. There's quite a lot of content-blocking in the UK (much wider than terrorism), for example, and I get the impression that France is simply catching up. Formerip (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hmmmm... doing some searches, I'm finding a common AFP report that says that they would "block access to sites "that provoke acts of terrorism or praise them" -- modelled on existing rules against child pornography sites." A less common take on the story quotes the draft saying "France will not tolerate messages calling for or glorifying jihad to be shown on its soil with impunity."  From this quote, and from the comparison with child pornography, I am less than hopeful that they would decide not to block your site as long as you're not actually a jihadist yourself.  Now I assume they're not going to block Wikipedia for hosting a translation of the Koran, but if we were ever able to see clear on the license to any of those old Osama bin Laden videos they liked to release every other year, I don't know about those.  I also don't know about hadiths - the radical Islamists are hardly known for creativity, and so far as I know their calls for violence are mostly rehashes of nasty hadiths from old times, aren't they?  I am not reassured at this point; because so many of us were too timid to dream of a net where literally nothing was censored, now others dream of one where everything is. Wnt (talk) 23:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

AN/I report concerning Daniellagreen and Carriearchdale

 * and or subject line injected here while editing my post to Jimbo Wales. Was it helping me since you state below to paraphrase you were trying to clean up the formatting of Jimbo's page? Or was it another battleground behaviour

meant to sway the report of the subject at ANI? edited for better clarity!!! ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

below is an unwelcomed edit of my statement to Jimbo Wales. Please do not edit or change any statement I may make here. ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 20:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC) ---(((( Proposed ban indefinite block of Carriearchdale== ))))_

"hi Jimbo Wales,

I have an account on the wikipedia, the english one.

Another party contacted me about what to do and how to report paid editing which apparently is one of the newer policies at wikipedia. paid editing without disclosure.

I let the party know that they could probably report it at the ANI board or maybe dispute resolution. THE PARTY LET ME KNOW THAT THEY WERE AFRAID TO REPORT THE POSSIBILITY OF USER Daniellagreen doing paid editing with non disclosure.

I felt bad for the party, and concerned for wikipedia, so I took a few days and looked over the info I had been given. I filed a report at the ANI board myself about the possibility that user Daniellagreen was doing paid editing with non-disclosure.

I guess I ruffled a few feathers there @ ANI with the report because the retaliatory machinations have gone into a QUITE FULL SWING!

I TRIED TO take particular care and to specifically avoid outing any personal identifying info of Daniellagreen. I asked assistance of one poster there where I was supposed to post, or contact OTRS, or someplace like that to give the more sensitive info to so it could be determined by the correct third party if the info would substantiate the possibility of the editor user of doing non disclosed paid editing or not. That poster was not sure.

I thought someone there should be aware that one or more of the administrator persons there posted to paraphrase, they didn't like that new policy anyways, and did not ever have any intention of ever trying to enforce it.

My name on wikipedia is Carriearchdale and I have been a registered member of wikipedia since 2007 contributing globally across some 35 wikipedias..

I just thought Jimbo or someone there should know that new policy against non disclose paid editing is not working out because the 'COMMUNITY" DOES not like the policy and are out to

KILL THE MESSENGER for helping another party who was afraid of retaliation report the paid editing.

Apparently I am about to be DELETED from wikipedia forever very quickly with no recourse available. I guess that is what I get for trying to help someone was fearing retaliation tactics if they had made the report themselves.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#I_would_like_to_report_user:daniellagreen_for_doing_paid_editing_with_nondisclosure_to_wikipedia_as_is_the_current_policy.

Carriearchdale — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carriearchdale (talk • contribs) 20:50, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the above editor has provided no evidence whatsoever to support her contention that there is paid editing going on. BMK (talk) 01:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, the claim made above that she was filing the report is a new one: the AN/I was written totally in the first person. This seems to be the editor trying to distance herself from the filing. BMK (talk) 01:15, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The editor also seems to have a bit of trouble talking straight. Yes, their account was created in 2007, but they made no edits until January 2014, so allowing the inference that she's been a regular contributor since 2007 is misleading.  Also, although her account is registered on 38 projects (not 35), she's actually only contributed to 21 of them, including en.wiki and Commons, the 19 other projects only received 406 edits.  She seems not to understand that being registered on a project doesn't mean that you're a  contributor to it - or simply doesn't care about accuracy (in which case she really shouldn't be editng an encyclopedia). BMK (talk) 01:38, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've really only contributed on en.wikipedia and only but a handful of edits to simple.wikipedia.org. Given my vast amount of contributions to this one, do you think that I am not contributing at all? That I'm not a contributor to the project? No, I am contributing. In the same sentence, she is a contributor, and that's why it's called 'Contributions' and not 'edits', because you are volunteering to edit pages and hope to make them better. in which case she really shouldn't be editng an encyclopedia I disagree and think it's rather harsh. If there is a single edit of hers that is not reverted and improved an article, then I would say that her registering here is ultimately a net benefit. Given she has 12 thousand edits, I'm sure that she meets that threshold. Nonetheless, I'm not going to outline or give her any merit/critiques on that ANI post, but she IS a contributor is what I'm trying to make. Tutelary (talk) 01:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * People contribute when and where they contribute, everyone does what they can and want to do, I have absolutely no problem with that. However, Carriearchdale is... uh... dissembling about how much she contributes in order to make herself look better to Jimbo and thereby justify her unsupported allegations about another user being a paid editor -- that's the issue.  (And BTW, she actually only contributed to 10 projects, not 35 or 38 -- see the AN/I thread.) BMK (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

What is proposed is not a community ban, the conduct involved in my view and the vast majority of others does not warrant such a drastic measure. What is being proposed is a indefinite block to show you that the behavior exhibited at the ANI thread, the false SPI filing and other locations is not acceptable. In the multitude of places where different editors have pointed out to you that the behavior is inappropriate, the response has been accusations and forum shopping. Myself (as the original proposer) and the vast majority of others supporting the action are more than happy to welcome you back with open arms once the disruptive behavior is acknowledged and rectified :-) <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  04:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * "[we] are more than happy to welcome you back with open arms once the disruptive behavior is acknowledged and rectified :-)". I bet there are representatives of many of the worst dictatorships on Earth, present and past, that said the very same words, smiley included, before sending people of dissenting opinions to all sorts of social correction, education, or indoctrination facilities. (No opinion about Carriearchdale's affair) - Nabla (talk) 07:41, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I hadn't even thought of it that way, I was trying to be cordial :/ Normally (in this case I originally did) I would argue against this sort of action as it is somewhat severe, but if you look at the ANI thread the history over the last 7 months, the action is strongly supported. Heavens, I'd even personally mentor this user if I felt they'd listen but given the history I'm not sure what other options are on the table. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  09:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * @Nabla: Wikipedia is not a government, or a model for an ideal society, it's a private website to build an encyclpedia, and it has Terms of Service rules. When those rules are broken, Wikipedia has, through the procedures it has set up to do so, the right to implement whatever actions it deems appropriate. On the other hand, no one has the right to edit here, and if you egregiously break the rules, you're going to be subject to exclusion.  Trying to compare that to expulsion from a country or society is an inapt analogy.  Think of it more along the lines of not allowing visitors to urinate in one's living room without being ejected. BMK (talk) 10:12, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Tweaking your analogy a bit — but we don't have puppies put to sleep for pissing on the rug. That would be sadistic. Carrite (talk) 15:34, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Things I learned on the internet today; the murder of animals is analogous to the right to add bits & bytes to a website. Tarc (talk) 15:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Witty and astute comeback, I am humbled. Carrite (talk) 16:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * What I objected to in the ANI thread and repeat here is that somebody with over 10,000 edits and one 24 hour block on her log is going to be thrown in the Indef dumpster with a community block. It is disingenuous to pretend that this is substantially different than an indef ban in this case; indeed, if she tries for removal of the block in a community appeal and is rejected, the ban becomes automatic. But hey, we've all seen lynch mobs at ANI before, this is nothing new... Carrite (talk) 14:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * You have a point (I'll change my !vote). But what to do? An IBAN with the editor she noted? A topic ban of some sort (but what sort)? Demand she work with a mentor (who? I'd even volunteer, but what would I be mentoring?). Her edits seem OK, but she does seem to have an issue with a few editors and has over-reacted quite a bit. JoeSperrazza (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know, a 7 day block and warning that if the behavior is repeated she will be looking at something longer... That would seem to be the way that escalating blocks are supposed to work. This is all moot though, her feet are already kicking in the wind... Carrite (talk) 15:00, 10 July 2014 (UTC) Last edit: Changed 30 to 7. Carrite (talk) 15:01, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I haven't and won't comment at ANI, but I did create this section when Carriearchdale just added this remark to the end of the last thread above. Even if, as seems likely, the indefinite block passes, it could be lifted provided the editor meet some offered conditions. Ten thousand edits since the 3rd of January this year is very welcome but not knowing to (or maybe how to) start a thread here is sort of a really bad sign. I think there is a really good chance the block might be lifted if and when a mentor is found and accepted and encourage Carriearchdale to take the time now available to become familiar with processes here until then. John Carter (talk) 18:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

statement posted be me on ani today --- reposted here in good faith to try and promote some clarity to, and to perhaps deflate some of the innuendos that have been flying around here, at  ANI, and frankly all around sweet dear wikipedia.

"I have addressed Daniellagreen about the personal attacks and baseless allegations there at the commons, as well as to her personal attacks, baseless allegations, and now more recently clear and posted by her legal threats against me by her Daniella Green. On at least two occasions other editors here at wikipedia tried to correct Daniellagreen by posting and telling her that that making legal threats using the L word, LIBEL, and variations thereof is considered a legal threat which can get you blocked. I recount my comments to Daniellagreen that I posted at the commons as quite pertinent, and relative to the debate here about an ANI REPORT of which the subject is: " I would like to report user:daniellagreen for doing paid editing with nondisclosure to wikipedia as is the current policy."

"For the record I responded to your continued personal attacks against me here at the commons, and I also set the record straight that it is you Daniellagreen that this current debate at ANI on en wikipedia is an ANI report that you are the subject of.You are confusing the the witch hunt, and lynch mob battleground tactics which are being used to try to sway the debate, and report about you being reported and accused of possibly doing paid editing while not disclosing. I also have made notice of two instances where you have made a clear legal threat towards me at the en wikipedia by using the words LIBEL and and variations thereof in statements you made there. Several editors on the pages where you made at least two legal threats against me even agreed with my view that what you posted in your statements would be considered as legal threats. I have never wished you any ill harm or bad wishes. In fact I do think that your motives might be good, but you have been led astray by the contentiousness of others. I wish you well in all your future endeavours. I have done my due diligence here, and have turned over any and all info that was given to me by another party to one of my trusted associates to move forward. Please do govern yourself accordingly!!! and as always please do have a lovely day!!!"

I do hope everyone will continue to have a fruitful and enjoyable week!!!"

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 19:25, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is that the accusations are completely unfounded, and rather than acknowledge that apologize and move on, the response has been further false accusations and hostile responses. This never would have gotten this far. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪   ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm really interested to know your thoughts on this matter, this has spilled onto your talk page and I'd like to get your input on it. <b style="color:#FC89AC;font-family:Comic Sans MS;">♥ Solarra ♥</b> <sup style="color:green">♪ 話 ♪  ߷  <sub style="color:#006400">♀ 投稿 ♀  22:23, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a Museum?
I've been learning a lot about Wikipedia through a Wikipedian-in-Residence internship at the Pritzker Military Museum and Library, within their larger Wikipedia project. It's really made me appreciative of all Wikipedia can do it improve the accessibility of the GLAM initiative. I hope the efforts to expand the coverage of less popular and older musical items will increase their visibility outside of Wikipedia as well.

What do you think of the concept of Wikipedia as a sort of "online museum" that transcends its original encyclopedic purpose? Is there a potential methodology we may develop to present or organize certain material on Wikipedia so it feels more like going through a museum than reading independent articles?

Love your work, dude! --EvanRo (talk) 21:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Nifty idea - and I'd say we already have something like that. Reminds me of Wikipedia Books, which are collections of Wikipedia articles sorted in a sensible manner (e.g. Book:Everglades for coverage of the Everglades). ~ Super  Hamster  Talk Contribs 21:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See Over 300 Virtual Tours & Museums around the World.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * See also Portal and Portal:Featured portals. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 23:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)


 * My personal belief is that this is a Bad Idea, since the very concept of what a museum is and how it is supposed to function is in flux. On the other hand, I think the user has a point about being able to do a guided "tour" through a topic. Series templates and footers could be redesigned to better facilitate this experience, and I would support this kind of development. Viriditas (talk) 01:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There has been some effort to make "outline" articles serve this function. One that I have worked on, for example, is Outline of the human nervous system.  But mostly those are pretty neglected. Looie496 (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * We have navboxes- can they be employed in this way? &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 21:07, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Incompetent hiding of comments of others by Carriearchdale is hiding an entirely separate section
HRH Carriearchdale in her ham-handed attempts to conceal the comments of others (only she is permitted to comment here) has actually concealed an entirely separate thread. Does someone want to risk her ire and restore it? John Carter (talk) 20:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ I'm not scared. Piguy101 (talk) 20:52, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am adding a warning on her talkpage as well. Piguy101 (talk) 20:55, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

You guys are so battleground and apparently not understanding something. As I posted the response to the pie guy is as follows

More retaliatory battleground behaviours intended to cause disruption and discord among editors. I did not as you have stated remove anything or attempt to conceal anything from MY POST ON JIIMBO'S WALL. WHAT I DID DO was edit my own statement there on Jimbo'swall Maybe the part you are confused about is the editor who altered my statement and inserted a misleading subject. I don't need any editors to chance the meaning or anything in my statement. So if your rule is an editor should not remove or change other editors talk page comments, then run right back over there and DO THE RIGHT THING and revert the editor who changed my comments by adding a misleading subject line!!!!!! Do too know the meaning of a double standard?

and HAM HANDED? That is a direct personal attack at me. Is this the scheduled hour to call in more editors like the one that showed up at my talk page ;last evening trying to instigate disruption? You people are unreal!!

ciao!!! I will still be having a great afternoon and I hope you all will be too!!!

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * When you edited your own statement, you added a convenient quote mark to an HTML comment which had the effect of hiding a large section of discussion. Intentional or not you did remove stuff. BethNaught (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Carriearchdale tried to suggest that it was an accident. I disagree and here is the conversion under the warning I gave here: User talk:Carriearchdale Piguy101 (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oh, would you look at that. Carriearchdale deleted my comments. How ironic. No good faith assumed. Piguy101 (talk) 22:13, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

more and more retaliatory and battleground behaviour
On my talk page I received this warning from an editor that was named and involved in the ANI report I posted at the request of another party who was afraid to post at ahi for fear of retaliation. I am seeing more and more why the arty said that to me.

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you remove or change other editors' legitimate talk page comments, as you did at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Piguy101 (talk) 4:55 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Ny response ro this pie guy person was a s follows:

More retaliatory battleground behaviours intended to cause disruption and discord among editors. I did not as you have stated remove anything from MY POST ON JIIMBO'S WALL. WHAT I DID DO was edit my own statement there on Jimbo'swall Maybe the part you are confused about is the editor who altered my statement and inserted a misleading subject. I don't need any editors to chance the meaning or anything in my statement. So if your rule is an editor should not remove or change other editors talk page comments, then run right back over there and DO THE RIGHT THING and revert the editor who changed my comments by adding a misleading subject line!!!!!! Do too know the meaning of a double standard?

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 5:24 pm, Today (UTC−4)

With this edit [118], you intentionally added a quotation mark on a template, which turned everyone's discussions into invisible HTML comments, essentially removing the comments. Piguy101 (talk) 5:33 pm, Today (UTC−4)

and you know that it was intentional and not a clerical mistake how? ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 5:46 pm, Today (UTC−4)

Today is a sad sad day for wikipedia!!!

ciao!!! Carriearchdale (talk) 21:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It is only really sad because of the arrogance, incompetence and irresponsibility you have fairly consistently displayed lately. John Carter (talk) 22:09, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Pictish language: classification
It appears there are certain editors who are specifically intent in their classification of Picts and Pictish language as being Celtic peoples and language that they dismiss any opposing viewpoints from RS sources claiming they must be wrong simply because they oppose their own sources saying Celtic. I frankly don't want to get involved, but as Pictish history has become the topic of my current studies I have found these articles sorely lacking, unhelpful, and horribly biased. Pictish language after being classified as Celtic in the lede and throughout the article mentions at the very last sentence of the entire article that a 2012 classification by an RS source and respectable author on language classification- classifies the language as "non-Indo-European" (ie-which makes it non-Celtic by default). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.11.77 (talk) 20:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I am revising the heading of this section from In case anyone is at all interested in cleaning it up to Pictish language: classification, in harmony with WP:TPOC, point 12 (Section headings). Please see Microcontent: How to Write Headlines, Page Titles, and Subject Lines.  The new heading facilitates recognition of the topic in links and watchlists and tables of contents.
 * —Wavelength (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A somewhat hostile way to start editing Wikipedia. I suggest the talk pages of said articles are a better place to discuss this than here. The Picts attract a lot of fringe theorists on the basis of their supposed air of mystery and it can be tricky sometimes to tell the reliable sources from those that are unreliable. The 2013 paper by Hamp (sort of) that apparently reasserts the non-Indo-European theory doesn't actually go as far as to say that Pictish is non-Indo-European, rather that there is a pre-Indo-European substratum (identified as "Picts") that influenced the development of Brittonic Celtic languages. This is uncontroversial and recognised by the likes of Forsyth who argue that Pictish is part of the Brittonic continuum.  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  11:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Guto Rhys of the University of Glasgow as recently as 2013 would disagree with the above interpretation that the Indo-European Celtic theory is the dominant and that it has been that way. There is controversy, the Celtic theory is neither the mainstream or dominant, and you attempt to portray it that way. My last word on the subject. And I've been editing for about 6 or 7 years but I hate doing it now, so... not a newbie, and yes I'm hostile. You're a POV pusher.24.217.11.77 (talk) 19:43, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've never heard of him. Should I have?  Catfish  Jim  and the soapdish  22:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Having pushed for the inclusion of Eric P. Hamp's view I have to admit it is less than ideal as an RS (he is now 94, & the view only comes in some notes of his written up by somebody else, in a very obscure journal). As long as that is the best RS the non-Celtics can come up with, and while every basic textbook you look at says the predominant view is that they did speak a Celtic language, things are unlikely to change. Johnbod (talk) 11:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Squabbles
Jimbo, Whether they are squabbles or acrimonius debates, etc., has anyone every approached you with an idea to reduce their occurrence in Wikipedia, so that there is some hope for improvement in the future? --Bob K31416 (talk) 22:30, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Presumably without resort to some sort of strict controls of some sort being enacted? John Carter (talk) 22:35, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I do think that this might be a good topic to be covered in the next WMF 5-year (?) plan: Updating the governance system to reflect the size and importance of WMF projects. 12 years ago the system may have been adequate, but lots of things have changed. If you need examples of things that aren't currently working very well, just look around on this page. Mr. 2001 is still hanging around here 7 years after he was banned. Russavia finally got himself community banned a few weeks ago, but only about 3 years after declaring war against the central governing structures of Wikipedia. And he is still sockpuppeting here. There should be serious discussion on whether the current systems work and whether they will be able to work in the future, and what the consequences will be if they don't work. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 01:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Are there five-year plans here? If there are, the first thing I might suggest might be consulting some volunteer workflow management experts (if such even exist) about how to optimize the effectiveness of volunteer time. Wikinews for instance was and is a great idea, but with the liberal interpretation of policy here regarding notability almost redundant now. For all the material available for use there and here, wikisource had only 270 total editors in the last month . I am sure if we could effectively better integrate all the entities both of those and the others could experience dramatic improvement, but I have doubts the existing separate strutures of all the entities will ever be able to effectively work together without some sort of imposition from above, preferably with indicators of how the changes will make things easier and increase general efficiency and effectiveness. John Carter (talk) 15:54, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * .......other than debugging Visual Editor you mean??? (Too easy.) Carrite (talk) 01:59, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * John Carter, I believe that there was one five-year plan (that's what strategy wiki was about) but that (maybe) there won't be another (for a while). WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion at Wikimedia_Foundation_Board_noticeboard#Suggestion_for_the_Board:_Technology_Committee which might be relevant. Deltahedron (talk) 22:04, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Directories of conferences
Conference directories can be used for (a) advertising Wikimania and (b) researching topics and resources for Wikipedia articles. —Wavelength (talk) 17:18, 13 July 2014 (UTC) and 17:21, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * AllConferences.Com Conventions Events Meetings
 * Academic conferences worldwide - Conference Alerts

Something you Should Know
User:Jimbo Wales, It is very nice to 'meet' you and to discover that you are the founder of Wikipedia, a source for knowledge and information that I often use, and to which I have contributed during the course of the past year or so. I wanted to take the time to compliment the editors and the process regarding an unfounded report that was recently made against me there by another, now indefinitely-blocked, editor. Having become disillusioned regarding a prior, separate matter, I could have but did not report the editor on Wikipedia (but have done so on WikiCommons, after being inspired by the absolutely overwhelming support that I received on Wikipedia). What occurred is that the editor reported me on Wikipedia with entirely false allegations, quite honestly leaving my head spinning at the very least. The situation was quite like nothing I have ever experienced before in an online setting, what with the false comments by the one particular editor, but also in a wonderful way in regard to the incredible support that I received on Wikipedia at the ANI forum. There are so, so many people (about 30 or more) who supported me that I am quite beside myself because I had really thought that the particular editor's behavior directed toward me and my work here was acceptable, and had been extremely discouraged. I would also like to recognize User:John Carter for making a statement in the ANI discussion that posts were being made at your talk page, otherwise I would never have known to come here and check it out. There are just so many people who have been supportive in this matter that tears are literally coming to my eyes right now; it has all been quite an experience. I'm glad that I reached out for advice and suggestions because I really was unsure about what to do, and did not desire to escalate the situation. So, I just wanted to take a few moments to come over here and let you know that you have created a wonderful resource, and that you have so, so many outstanding editors here. I am really thankful for all of that! Those folks who are genuinely doing the right thing and contributing here in good faith, particularly in my recent experience, are to be recognized and commended for their professionalism, diligence, support, kindness, and good faith. I am going to re-post this on my talk page, also, so that our fellow colleagues are aware of my comments to you. Thank you, again, and God bless, <b style="color:#7F007F">Daniellagreen</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  04:00, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just in case this seems random, it's related to the "carriearchdale" threads Jimbo hatted above  the panda ₯’  00:35, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * so you want to say that the post is not worth listening to and want to discourage us from doing so?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:37, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Um, no, I don't believe I even suggested that the panda ₯’  00:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok, then it's probably a misunderstanding, ..., sorry.
 * But this is also quite ambivalent - not knowing the circumstances, this could be a user trying to suck up to the max to the administration or someone trying to apply genuine irony/sarcasm!?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:45, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Another "ok", when further reading it seems to be true relief by a user that an intrigue within Wikipedia was debunked as such by the community... Is it?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

"What occurred is that the editor reported me on Wikipedia with entirely false allegations" - this is what is most striking to me about the Wikipedian system: it is possible to do this, make "entirely false allegations" and have a friendly official make a decision regardless of the truth, facts or proves, censoring the matter, before any objective source can even read it.--37.230.26.240 (talk) 01:02, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Jimbo hatted those sections, collapsing them with the explanation that he didn't think.the discussion appropriate for his talk page. He erased and suppressed nothing. Any reader including you can click "show" and read that stuff if they want. So your use of the word "censoring" fails even the most expansive definition of that term, IP user 37. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  03:40, 12 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Refuting false claims has worked at ANI: Even though many people have been victims of false claims at wp:ANI, there are other cases where level-headed users have debunked the false accusations to refute unfounded claims. ANI needs major reforms to require "rules of evidence" when making claims, and divide each issue into fact-finding versus judgment phases, to deter people who dogpile "guilty" before the false claims have been refuted. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Even if there were a 24 hour clock that started running following a "Motion to ban" before any Ban opinions could be rendered, that would be a step forward. You are right that the greatest ANI injustices happen because accusation and retribution is fast but defense can be slow. Carrite (talk) 16:13, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again, to all of your for your support in this matter. It is definitely a reflection that false claims were refuted, and Wikipedia has been protected. That's the bottom line, <b style="color:#7F007F">Daniellagreen</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk)  <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * An editor with 10,000 edits and only 1 block for 24 hours for edit warring got indeffed off the site rather than reformed... That is nothing to celebrate. Carrite (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That user was a loon, good riddance. Tarc (talk) 03:53, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This is a strength of argument observation: Because Carrite is not known to propagate "hollow sentiments", and the rebuttal is a strictly unqualified, literally unauthorized, "medical diagnosis"; straight out of "the manual of Straw man", at best, The "nod" suggests that Carrite is speaking a worthy truth that can not be discredited without desperate attempts of empty aspersion. I suppose I'll be interested in looking into this matter further; with thanks to both of you for showing the importance.—John Cline (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

It should be noted that there was some investigation done by other editor(s) into the user's behavior and edits. It was found that the user was a sleeper for 6 years, and has only been editing for the past 6 months. In many and/or most of those edits that she made, it was found that they were minor edits, and/or edits where she made 1 edit in comparison to 10 that a more experienced editor would make. This editor has been awarded the veteran editor II star, but for what reasons - these reasons? I think a deeper investigation would reflect that the more than 10,000 edits made were not of good quality, not to mention other issues that have been brought to administration's attention. The situation at hand was over-the-top, and an indefinite block was directly or indirectly supported by 28 people in a report made by the user that presented false claims. It should also be noted that Carrite was one of only 3 editors who disagreed with the other 28 editors, even when the editor worsened the situation rather than being open to improvement and a different perspective. One veteran editor stated to me that he has never observed this type of situation of this magnitude here. Indeed, it was also something of the likes that I have never experienced before, either. I sincerely hope that no one else has to experience this ever again. Again, I appreciate everyone's support, that false claims were refuted, and that proper action was taken, <b style="color:#7F007F">Daniellagreen</b> <sup style="color:#7F007F">(talk) <sup style="color:#7F007F">(cont)  16:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Search Engine Results ( -> Google)
Why is Wikipedia listed as the top search result among Encyclopedias while all the other Encyclopedias are not even listed on page one, at all?--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not. Assuming you've cleared your History cache. Encyclopedia Britannica is first, Encyclopedia.com is second, followed by Wikipedia, followed by various other encyclopedias. What you are seeing is the result of Google's "personalization", based on what you've been viewing. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * WP outranks Britannica for many viewers: Even when "personalization" is disabled in Google's "Web History" menu, then WP pages tend to outrank Britannica (EB) because EB typically presents a topic as a related-pages list, rather than a webpage focused on the named topic. EB page access is a 2-step process, to first search for topic, then choose among the related pages. Meanwhile the search-engine results are chosen to down-rank a page which includes a topic on a page with a "laundry list" of related phrases, while up-ranking a page devoted to the topic. Consequently, some medical encyclopedias, with dedicated-topic pages, have often outranked WP in searches. -Wikid77 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Too bad you didn't read the comment by 37.230.26.240 more carefully. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Try re-reading my detailed response more carefully, about WP outranking Britannica, but not some medical encyclopedias/sites, with the reasons stated in the response above. -Wikid77 11:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Depending on topic, WP has more-specific pages to match: Some medical encyclopedias/sites tend to outrank WP, such as Skincancer.org or Mayoclinic.org or MedlinePlus from the U.S. NIH. Because the search-engine target is whole webpages, then for random topics WP is more likely to rank high, with specific pages dedicated to each topic. Surely, no other website has the broad coverage, and WP's emphasis on wp:NPOV-neutral text makes it a safer choice for search-results display. -Wikid77 13:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Monopoly (From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
A monopoly (from Greek monos μόνος (alone or single) + polein πωλεῖν (to sell)) exists when a specific person or enterprise is the only supplier of a particular commodity (this contrasts with a monopsony which relates to a single entity's control of a market--37.230.26.240 (talk) 00:20, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is a question that you should take up with Google, not Jimbo or Wikipedia, as they design their sophisticated search algorithms, not us Wikipedians. As everyone knows, Google is a profit-making business, and prominently displays content from paying customers. Because Wikipedia pays Google not a single penny, it seems that something else is at work. Perhaps it is because Wikipedia offers vastly more free, high quality original content than any other website? Perhaps it is because hundreds of millions of readers regularly place their faith in Wikipedia, trusting us to provide good introductory coverage of millions of topics, in every major language? Those are my guesses, but you would have to ask Google. They may choose not to answer, though. Business secrets, after all. <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  01:51, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Wishful thinking, based on a lack of understanding of Google's personalization. (I would further guess you didn't bother to try to replicate the results.) See above. 71.23.178.214 (talk) 17:24, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's obviously not a case of monopoly, which is where there is a single seller in the market place. Wikipedia does not sell its product - in fact it gives it away, makes it available for anybody else to give away, and will even supply the software to give it away.  I'd be interested to know what other encyclopedias there are that the IP thinks are possible "competitors" or "replacements" for Wikipedia? I know there are some local topic 'pedias, and a few things like the Austrian Economics 'pedia. I haven't looked at the Encyclopedia Britannica lately, but doubt that it is worth paying for if WP is available. Doesn't the Chinese government sponsor its own online pedia?


 * Unlike a monoply, there is competition in this "market", even if the product can be freely copied in many cases. There is a competition for readers - if they don't trust the contents they'll go elsewhere - and there is competition for writers - if the community understands that readers are avoiding their content, then they will likely go elsewhere.  I know wikipediocracy tried to create something like its own pedia, but they obviously didn't understand this "market".  Why would any reader trust a pedia that is advertising products to them undercover?


 * Probably the biggest force that has a similar economic effect on us as competition would, is "potential competition." We should understand that if we don't produce a product that readers want, another editing community could be formed, include extra features (or excluding certain aspects of WP such as edits from anons) and our readers will be drawn away.  About 80% of WP content could be uploaded, no problem. So you'd have a pedia with 3.4 million articles instead of 4.2 million. What would it cost to do this? I'd guess less than $5 million to start it and maybe $5 million per year to run it.  If the WMF can raise $50 million per year, it's pretty likely that a "competitor" could be self-sustaining.
 * We should certainly take the threat of competition very seriously. Smallbones( smalltalk ) 17:30, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I assume the "monopoly" assertion refers to Google, which has all the power on this point - we will have no warning if they ever decide to stop listing Wikipedia in favor of some in-house extract or some other site. (I imagine if auto-translation gets good enough a Google-Baidu merger becomes inevitable) Google is enough of an official monopoly that governments put regulations on Google (plus Bing) as their means of regulating what the public searches.  However, if we do not allow deletionists to casually delete "extra" sources and "less interesting" details, Wikipedia could provide some degree of competition against Google as a means of searching the net.  And I believe that a better-designed Wikipedia can compete against itself and freely share infrastructure with other encyclopedias. Wnt (talk) 18:03, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * In recent years, about half (~50%) of all pageviews have come via Google hits, but I don't know if those people read more of each page than people seeing a page via a wikilink from other pages or Bing/Yahoo. Also Google, Bing (MSN Search) and Yahoo Search have all promoted WP in search-results lists, but the page-ranks have varied somewhat. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I'd worry that 50% is just a tip of the iceberg. I don't know if the stats even keep track of when someone clicks to a subpage; certainly they don't count the people who bookmark a Wikipedia link or simply become more aware of the site after they find it on Google and then come back later. Wnt (talk) 02:14, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It doesn't make sense to say that a non-profit has a monopoly on what is essentially a philanthropic effort. CorporateM (Talk) 19:19, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I think we need some serious competition.  In practice we do have a sufficient virtual monopoly because of  the extent of our use and our general acceptance in the world, that, despite the feasibility of reusing content for another free encyclopedia,    it would be very difficult to get sufficient editors for another encyclopedia with the same scope  as WP. There is however room for one with either a more scholarly approach, or possibly one with a more inclusive approach. For a while it seemed possible that Citizendium might meet the need for a more academic approach,  but it didn't happen (initially because of the decision not to make   the licensing  compatible with WP--for a few years it's been the same, but  their format still requires complete rewriting before they will accept even good WP content.  I think it's time for another try at this., possibly following the lead of some of the medical editors who are arranging for peer-reviewed versions of WP articles in their field.  DGG ( talk ) 01:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Just keep improving Wikipedia pages, by the hundreds and thousands meanwhile, but we need a "Micropedia" version in WP to show short blurbs about each major subject, compared to articles which span 17 or 25 pages of rambling text while wp:Data hoarding the excessive details. -Wikid77 12:36, 13 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I think the "more inclusive" ones still exist? Deletionpedia or something like that? Have they been popular? I guess not... --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:39, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the "Urban dictionary" (fictionary) also ranks high in Google searches as a "more inclusive" um, encyclopedia? I guess that dispels the myth that Google ranks websites high because of reliable content, but does thwart attempts at deciphering their rationale for ranking some websites higher. -Wikid77 11:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I would not be surprised at all if Urban Dictionary ranks higher on searches for definitions of slang, online acronyms and dirty words than Wikipedia. That's what they are fairly.good at, after all. But is there any evidence that they rank high on searches for what we consider to be generally encylopedic topics? <b style="color:#070">Cullen</b><sup style="color:#707">328  Let's discuss it  06:52, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

maintaining means deleting?!
"'permastub' while a not very helpful word, is an effort to reach a valid concept: that while topic X may be a valid topic for a hypothetical encyclopedia with infinite resources, we actually do have finite resources, and we can't responsibly maintain everything --Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:27, 28 June 2014 (UTC)" "deleters cannot help to maintaining, 'coz they just do not have necessary knowledge of astronomy! don't you suggest Jimbo that all the articles of astronomy should be deleted for better maintenance, do you? by the way: before deleters annexed wikipedia, the project used to have ten active members, and the situation with its' maintenance was much better, as ten people could few times better maintain articles than two, so deleters did not improved maintenance as they claim and proud, in fact they make people who can maintain articles to leave wikipedia, which is not achieving neither goal of maintenance nor achieving of quality (Idot (talk) 06:57, 5 July 2014 (UTC))" Jimbo, still waiting for you explaining: don't you mean if astronomy articles (in ru-wiki) do not have enough qualified people to maintain articles the best way is to delete that articles? (Idot (talk) 12:36, 14 July 2014 (UTC))
 * You are unlikely to find help for anything with deals with wikipedias in different languages from English here, and these seem questions best posed to the ru-wiki community than to Wales. Even on en.wiki, I doubt he would have control on such issues. -- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 12:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Cyclopia, dont' jump the guns! it is a real example - that might happen in any wiki! I'm not asking what we should do in ru-wiki in this certain case, I'm asking what should be done in similar case generally - in any wiki, including en-wiki too, what should be done if any project in any wiki do not have any more qualified members for maintaining? if deleters say that they delete to maintain, does it mean that the articles who nobody any more maintains should be deleted? even in a case when topic is definitely important (so I've given example of astronomy) Idot (talk) 13:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * There are a large number of articles that are on notable subjects, but in such poor condition that Wikipedia would be better off without them. Unambiguous advertising, deceit, attack pages, original research, jibberish, etc. If the best thing for an editor with an interest in the page to do is to just blow it up and start over then the first step to improving the article is blowing up the current one. CorporateM (Talk) 13:48, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , please notice that WP:TNT is a controversial essay, while our deletion policy says that what can be fixed by editing should be fixed by editing.-- cyclopia <sup style="color:red;">speak! 16:19, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * CorporateM, when you say "poor condition that Wikipedia would be better off without them", don't forget to say that every year reasons for deletion that deleters call "quality standards" become more and more pro-deletistic, so that article that in one year was good enough, next year could be deleted as "improving quality", however deleters do nothing for improving quality, they just delete more and more, and deleter are not likely to stop while everything will be deleted, 'coz what they able to do is to delete - not improve => so if wikipedia is going to die, just 'coz people are discouraged from writing articles, 'coz what ever they write and considered as good qulaity enough, a next year could be easily deleted as "improving quality" by people who do not write neither improve - just delete and take deep pleasure from it (Idot (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2014 (UTC))
 * As Wikipedia becomes more influential, we become increasingly inundated with spam, attack pages and other garbage that could be improved, but for which we do not realistically have the resources to do so. It's just not practical to accept the obligation to turn spam into a decent page, where it is actually an improvement to just delete it and focus on articles where you have an interest. As Wikipedia is constantly under siege by POV pushers, we must raise very high walls, which does result in collateral damage. Yet in many cases, we actually want to discourage some contributors, who will never be useful to our goals. Like Tarc below, I count myself among the deletionists. CorporateM (Talk) 16:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)


 * , you started a debate on deletionism on this page not a month ago (User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 165) and the coals were more than thoroughly raked over, while Jimbo said nothing. I don't know what you're trying to achieve by flogging a horse so recently dead. How about you head over to WP:AFD and defend worthy articles instead? BethNaught (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * BethNaught, you mean that instead writing articles I should spend whole time for arguing not for writing articles? if deleters like arguing very much and ready spend whole time for arguing, does it mean that writers a like arguing too and will be happy to spend whole time for arguing not for writing? writers are people who whould like to spend time for writing, not for endless arguing, so if wiriters are forced for endless arguing they choose to leave wikipedia, as it very sadly become happy place for those who like deliting and arguing, but not for people who like writing articles and improving 'em, people who like writing are greatly discouraged (Idot (talk) 15:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC))
 * I mean that instead of repeatedly clogging up Jimbo's talk page you should do something constructive like, um, writing, editing or maintaining articles. I also mean that if you want to take on deletionists, you would do better to make your voice heard at AFD, where you can actually help save worthy articles, rather than here, where you cannot. But I won't bother with this discussion any longer. BethNaught (talk) 16:06, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * This user is on a perpetual whinge, he does not feel that it is his responsibility to do any of the heavy lifting you suggest. In his mind, the disease-ridden swill that is the horde of deletionists (a group I am happy to be counted in) have run so amok in this project that we are not only deleting valid content now, but discouraging future content by creating a hostile atmosphere for every 16 yr old kid who can't make an article on his favorite Transformer or local garage band. Tarc (talk) 16:23, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Our resources are more scarce than people believe. For 3+ years nobody had detected that Psychopedagogy was an obvious copy/paste from a book. After removing the copyright violation, it's reduced to 2 short paragraphs.

Wikipedia is an educational resource, right? But we can't even have a decent article on the science of how kids learn. Deletionists are not the greatest danger to wikipedia. Not attracting people willing of writing vital articles is a real danger. --Enric Naval (talk) 19:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Let me plug one of my own hobbyhorses here. Developing more pages indicatin what material can be found in which reference books like the pages in Category:WikiProject lists of encyclopedic articles might make development of core pages a lot easier. John Carter (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Eric, interesting point but we may actually be witnessing our failure not in content creation but in the encyclopedists job of organization. We cover for example Developmental Psychology there and Educational Psychology there and many hundreds of other overlapping things to your stub article, for example in this list]. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really understand what the original poster is talking about in particular, so I'll just make the general comment that a great many articles on astronomy are very uncontroversial and of very very little material significance to any human being. When I talk about why some things should be deleted, rather than somewhat permanently a stub, I am talking primarily about biographies and secondarily about articles that have some biographical consequences (companies, etc.). There is a risk - an all too real risk that we have plenty of experience with - that an obscure page will be abused and no one will notice until someone has been hurt by it. The same is not true (in general) of very obscure asteriods. (For example.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:04, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Indeed, at AFC we are inundated with undiluted sewage consisting of non notable bios, company adverts and other vanicruftispamtisments - the job of picking out the few good topics floating in the stream of crap is becoming very onerous. I recently remarked that WP is still several million articles short of properly covering living things (species) - which are about as close to "inherently notable" as any topic can get - but there are hundreds (thousands?) of attempts every single day to use WP to spam a company, cause, band, person. We need a serious effort to create articles about stuff that really does matter and will continue to matter until Homo sapiens goes extinct. Instead of writing about yet another garage band/youtube-famous nonentity/corner café/etc. - none of which will exist in ten years, rather write about a shrimp, grass, bacteria or pond-scum species - it's infinitely more notable. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:00, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, it'd be great if people spent their time on species of grass rather than some band they happen to like. On the other hand, it's easier to write what you know, and people are going to start there.  If people put work into an article about some local church or whatnot, and it gets deleted a half hour later, and they come back online to a talkpage full of template-notice-spam, they're never going to learn the ropes well enough to move on to species of grass - nor feel welcome enough or connected enough to Wikipedia to want to do the extra work.  Wily D  09:21, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

congressedits twitter feed

 * twitter.com/congressedits

A rather interesting idea, to publicize Wikipedia edits made via IP addresses assigned to the US Congress. So far we have found out that someone in Rep. Huelskamp's office is likely bucking for a promotion, and that Congressional staffers in the Rayburn Building really dig Choco Tacos. Tarc (talk) 19:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Hm. Slate article explaining a bit about this. Herostratus (talk) 20:26, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Flattery (or not?) on lifting WP content
Guess what I noticed. Two articles have been lifted almost verbatim from Wikipedia articles by the McCook Gazette, which does not credit WP as its source but is now claiming © Copyright 2014 McCook Gazette. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Article I, July 7, 2014 and Article II, July 14, 2014 have been lifted from Audie Murphy, Military career of Audie Murphy, Film career of Audie Murphy and List of songs written by Audie Murphy. Guess we did a good job at WP if this publication liked it enough to steal it and claim it as their own work. Some people have no shame (or talent of their own).— Maile (talk) 13:20, 15 July 2014 (UTC)