User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 205

Archive 200

←

Archive 203

Archive 204

Archive 205

Archive 206

Archive 207

→

Archive 210

Jan 2016 edit-counts rebound from December

See: https://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediansEditsGt5.htm

January 2016 S M T W T F S 27 28 29 30 31 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31

As could be expected, the January 2016 edit-counts have rebounded right back up as usual. Even with the reduced edits of the Friday Xmas & New Years Day weekends, the broad edit-count activity (5 or more edits) is only about 3% lower than January 2015 (the prior Friday New Year was 2009). Typical pageviews were also low during the January 1-3 weekend, so I figure low pageviews predicts low edit-counts that weekend. The next common year starting on Friday is 2021, then 2027 and 2039, as likely lower January edit-counts.

Meanwhile, the Turkish Wikipedia is on fire, with now 800 active editors, as the highest in forever (previously 739). A low spot is the Vietnamese Wikipedia, down worse than Chinese, so perhaps China has targeted the Vietnamese site as well. That reminds me of President Lyndon Johnson with the quagmire in Vietnam, where supposedly his potential win in North Vietnam was stopped by China's threat to nuke a U.S. takeover and millions of people (hence later Nixon in China & detente). Anyway, the strong January-2016 edit-counts seem unaffected by any rumors about the WMF staff, or whatever complaints here. -Wikid77 (talk) 10:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• It is good to see that whateverthehell it was that happened in December was a temporary blip... The count for Very Active Editors (100 edits/mo.) across all projects topped the 11,000 mark and was the highest since Jan. 2012. On En-WP the count of 3,492 was up 5.8% from the same month of the previous year and topped the figures for January 2015, 2014, 2013, and 2012. Reports of Wikipedia's demise have been greatly exaggerated. I know that there is a way to check the percentage of edits attributable to VE, which had been running about 4% of total edits last I heard. Can anyone provide that figure for Jan. 2015 from the available data? (That would be a good number series for WMF to generate in tabular form, just saying...) Carrite (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Actually that is not right, there has been "a steady overall decline in active editors" up to today's date (26 February 2016), according to this article in The Register by Andrew Orlowski. MPS1992 (talk) 22:05, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Register is a secondary source, if you go to the primary sources and things appeared to decline from 2007 to 2014 then bottomed out and have recovered a little. One measure is the time between 10 million edits; that peaked at 37 days in 2007, dropped to 73 days at the slowest point in 2014 and is now running at about 66 days. Another measure at the other end of the scale is the editors doing over 100 edits per month in mainspace, that seems to have peaked in 2007 but rallied in 2015. So if you look at raw figures the English Wikipedia is below the 2007 peak, but that ignores the effect of the abuse filters, faster vandalism reversion and blocking and the migration of intrawiki links to Wikidata. All of those improvements have reduced raw edit count and we don't know what it would now be if they hadn't happened. ϢereSpielChequers 17:47, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

The operative phrase is "Active Wikipedians," which means a very specific thing — the group of those making 5 or more edits a month. LINK This number has not rebounded as robustly as the core volunteers number, the "Very Active Wikipedians" making 100 or more editors a month. In fact the January 2016 figure of "Active Wikipedians" on En-WP (30,993) continues what may be characterized as a "steady overall decline" from the peak year of 2007, when WP was expanding fast and was something of an internet fad. So Orlowski and The Register — who are consistent critics of WP — aren't exactly wrong, they are just phrasing the metrics in a very tendentious way. For all practical intent, the pivotally important declining count of core editors attenuated in 2012-2013, took another significant drop in 2014, and recovered to the 2012 level over the past year. There are somewhat fewer casual editors, but that seems to me natural with a maturing project, in which footnoting becomes mandatory and the typos are steadily being fixed. Carrite (talk) 17:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah good point about editors making five edits in a month. But remember how many edits it takes for a vandal to get four warnings and a block. The edit filters have lost us a lot of the vandals who were in those stats in 2007, though as far as I'm aware by now they must be getting diminished returns, in fact the first half of 2015 showed month on month increases. Since mid last year that has dipped again. As for whether we would expect to lose some of the editors who make >=5 edits a month, I'd agree that readers who fix the odd typo will be finding fewer typos as they get rarer, so some of those editors will drop below the 5 edit a month threshold. But more generally I'd say that whatever happened to new autoconfirmed editors mid year seems to have also hit the "active editor" count, though not as sharply. ϢereSpielChequers 21:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes there was a processing glitch re the December figures. Also there does seem to be a problem with editors reaching their tenth edit, that has stopped rising and started dropping again since July, especially recently. I'm in discussion with a number of people at WMF and elsewhere to work out why. It could be just a glitch. ϢereSpielChequers 17:50, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

And would a glitch in the December edit-counts also be affecting the January counts as well? -Wikid77 (talk) 23:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There was a glitch in the December count that was fixed in the January run. One of the theories for the Dec-Jan dip is that it could be another as yet unidentified processing glitch. ϢereSpielChequers 09:23, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Status of autofixed cites

The autofixing of cite templates has been on hold for years, and instead some cite-focused editors merely hand-adjust over 900 pages per month to rework the rampant cite errors. The cite templates now generate many error messages for various issues, and when a page is botched by wreckless edits, a number of people (or Bots) rush to salvage the cites, often concealing a hack edit/vandalism (in one of 5 million who-cares pages) as if approved by their subsequent edit(s), which then thwart simple Undo as blocked by intermediate cite edits.

As you might recall from 2013, I had developed an extensive version of the wp:CS1 cite templates to autofix invalid cite parameters (where the intended option was clear), but the innovation was too overwhelming and quickly rejected, plus even the essay about the plan was deleted[!] as moved to "User:Wikid77/Autofixing cites". Well, too many people/Bots still want to salvage cites, and they do not care to proofread 5 million pages, but just obsess on cite format, so we need intelligent autofixing of cites until patrollers who want to actually proofread a botched page have time to fix the overall page correctly, not just cite-wipe the text. Meanwhile, edits to fix cites often cause other problems in pages, at a rate of about 10% of fixes aren't. Overall, this is a thorny problem but I wanted to re-open discussion about the issues. Some factors:

• Almost half of all cite errors are 3 types: they put a vertical bar "|" in a title (which is treated as a 2nd parameter); they omit "|url=" before "http" or else they misspell "access-date=" (often as 1 'c' or 's').
• Autofixing of many cite parameters is only possible due to speed of Lua script, because the markup templates cannot check for misspelled values fast enough to format 400 cites per major page.
• Fixes to cites often require expertise because many users are confused by cite rules or vertical bar as "|" or "|" inside a URL address.

More about these issues later. Again, this is just a status update. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:49, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikid77: Speaking as someone who regularly fixes citation errors: is this currently active as a discussion elsewhere? I'd rather this happened on the Village Pump or similar, since it's not terribly relevant on this page. Short preview of my thoughts: While auto-fixes are dangerous, we could reasonably implement some, but not all, to shift some issues from ("red-text") errors to (default-hidden, green text) maintenance. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 19:23, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

The full debate was years ago, and the result degenerated into a wp:TfD to delete and userfy Template:Cite_web/auto as quickly as possible lest people learn easier ways to fix thousands of cite errors which could become used by hundreds of editors, and that would force a handful of anti-users to have to stamp out those editors' work to destroy any vestiges of what the editors had learned meanwhile. Hence a systemwide set of RfCs would be needed to pre-empt the systemwide erasure of improvements because it only takes 3 users to completely exterminate massive improvements in templates used for years by hundreds of people. However, now that many present-day automobiles autofix (or autobrake) for speed, I think systemwide RfCs could be discussed to expand the autofixing of cites. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:48, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikid77: It looks like the TfD was an over-reaction to an over-eager implementation of improvements (to the article namespace!), especially given varying opinions on auto-fixes. I think that if we scale back the auto-fixes a bit and hash out some of the reasons people had that reaction in the first place (auto-fixes are dangerous), we can manage some improvements to the citation modules. I don't think we need to jump straight to an RfC; I'll start a Village Pump thread later tonight to get some initial reactions to the basic idea, and we can move forward from there. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 22:43, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

• Many autofixes need to be aliases to avoid wrongness: Some people were locked to the mindset that "wrong cites need to be edited as permanently fixed" and autofixing would just be a complex delay of the eventual edit. Instead some autofixes need to be recast as aliases or alternative parameters, such as:

• "access date=" or "accessed=" would become new aliases for hyphenated access-date.
• "Author=" & "Last=" & "First=" & "Title=" would become aliases of the lowercase.
• Parameter "|http..." would become a valid alternative to "|url=" prefix.
• A dot-month "Jan." or "Feb." would become a text-alias for "Jan" or "Feb" rather than an autofixed spelling error.
• A capital word after a bar '|' would append each bar-text to the title, such as "|BBC News" or "| Update". If people don't want extra text in titles, then don't use bar '|' text.

Meanwhile bad spelling errors (such as "auhtor" or "pulbisher") would be autofixed for a later edit to fix those "wrong parameters" before they ruin the universe; otherwise people just cannot de-obsess about the wrongness which must be corrected to make the vandalism better format.

It is imperative to present simple errors as alternative, alias forms or else some people will imagine the page is dirty "filthy" with cite wrongness. Many people simply cannot de-obsess about fixing the date format or spelling in a false phrase about a subject. It is a form of "penny-wise and pound-foolish" as when people will focus on the dropped pennies while dollar-bills or Euro notes slide in the wind. It is crucial to understand how people think, otherwise cite-obsessiveness will still rule the day, while the French cite fr:Template:Lien_web continues to autofix English date format "July 7, 2015" as French "7 juillet 2015" for yet another year. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Lila resigns

Within the last 20 minutes Lila Tretikov has announced her resignation as ED on wikimedia-l. BethNaught (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Preliminary followup from Patricio:[1] --Guy Macon (talk) 20:04, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Whew. Now we really have to try to reset and start over, somehow. A good starting point would be the WMF Board telling us the story of what has gone on, in a way that respects everybody's experiences, without further obfuscation. that would be amazing. Jytdog (talk) 19:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I continue to advocate for that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

And this validates all the "discussions" held on this and other pages in what way? I fear I do not see how any of this arm-waving and angry discourse actually benefits either Wikipedia (as an encyclopedia) or the WMF (as the legal entity behind Wikipedia), and it decidedly seems to make Wikipedia into the "tabloid capital of the Internet" with regard to what is, and what is not, actually important. Collect (talk) 19:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, I partly agree. The drama has been sadly much higher than normal, and that's unfortunate. But it is also really important that we stay wildly open. Democratic institutions are often noisy, and not all the rhetoric is always helpful. But that's a lot better than a closed approach where dissent is discouraged or eliminated.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The WMF has lost a lot of great people - see [2] - most recently User:Ironholds, as of the 23rd. Unfortunately, few of them are really explaining what's wrong well enough for some of us in the audience to understand exactly what has gone wrong. I am suspicious though this goes all the way back to when we lost Mike Godwin, seemingly over a minor spat involving the article about the FBI - and if that's true, the problem predates Tretikov, and will very likely continue under her successor. Wnt (talk) 19:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think Mike Godwin's departure had anything at all to do with the article about the FBI! I've never even heard such an idea.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I remembered he took a lot of heat in this discussion and related offline commentary in August 2010, and when he left in October 2010 I think there was some speculation along that line, neither more nor less convincing to me than a lot of the speculation we're hearing now about why various WMF employees left recently. I apologize if this impression was mistaken. Wnt (talk) 01:54, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I hereby call for not commenting on the accuracy of the claims made in the resignation message, and for those who agree with me on this to completely ignore any such comments (any response just encourages further discussion) It would not be fair to do anything other than allowing Lila her final say and moving on to a discussion about how to move forward. Who is with me on this? --Guy Macon (talk) 19:58, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

In general, I am, subject to the caveat that I don't think we should try to shut down discussions that people want and need to have. I do encourage dignity and that people be forward looking. The fundamental question is "How can we improve things?" - This necessarily involves some element of looking back on "What went wrong?" But we shouldn't get bogged down in only "What went wrong?"--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

While one could wish that the director of a foundation of this size and importance could use the word "equitably" correctly, and that her personal staff would in any case detect the mistake in a document of such importance to their director and to the foundation, I agree with Guy Macon that we ought to avoid a long wrangle here about the substantive claims. MarkBernstein (talk) 20:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. There is no need to kick someone when they're down, or to shoot them from behind as they walk away. (Don't bite: metaphors.) The record can be left to speak for itself. BethNaught (talk) 20:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This response seems to set the right tone:

. . . I know many people disagreed with your strategy and your decisions, but as I had the privilege to knew your personally during the last 2 years, I know each one of them were truly in the favor of the movement in your personal point of view. Thank you for all the works during the last two years. For being available to speak personally with each one of us. I learned a lot for each meeting or conversation with you. Thank you Lila, and good luck whatever will the roads will take you. -- Regards,Itzik Edri , Chairperson, Wikimedia Israel [3]

-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

From what I've gleaned over the stories and messages I've read, much of the clash seemed to be putting a business-oriented person in charge of a large non-profit where many of the employees work because they believe in the mission, not for the size of their paychecks and so demanding results (mentioned in an earlier email from Lila) will garner a different response than it would at a startup. I think she and the Board underestimated how much they need the support of the larger Wikipedia community and how much a non-profit needs to care about process as much as the achieving results. Both are possible, of course, but the repeated calls for more transparency indicates that concerns about the process of governance and leadership might have suffered. Again, some of these incidents wouldn't have been an issue in a for profit company but in an organization that relies so much on volunteer labor, it's essential. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:00, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I think Liz's comment hits the mark. It all comes down to whether Wikimedia is a movement or an entity. Process is paramount with a movement and results is paramount with an entity. Most movements seem to evolve or devolve into entities within a decade or two, or else evaporate. But a few, a very few, last long enough to give evidence that a movement can possibly continue indefinitely. In this tiny category I think of movements which have an indefinite "live the movement" or, to be dramatic, "live the revolution" mantra and ever present commitment among the participants, with the goal of continuing ad infinitum as opposed to say, working towards IPO day. Right now the only examples I can think of are major religions and one or two long lasting political movements, but I see no reason why there could not be a "movement", dedicated to something as simple as spreading free knowledge, that could continue ad infinitum. If that is the purpose, then perhaps its best to accept that process must rule, and quantitative results should be seen as icing, or not, on the cake. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:54, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Let us put in perspective the assertion "to be putting a business-oriented person in charge of a large non-profit where many of the employees work because they believe in the mission, not for the size of their paychecks and so demanding results will garner a different response than it would at a startup". From the Knight Grant document, the average paycheck of the WMF technical people is 125K$ per year. Asking for some results doesn't seem so cruel. Pldx1 (talk) 19:29, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Sticking with perspective, employee retention in San Francisco is a huge priority because of a supply shortage in the tech sector. Also, San Francisco/San Jose are beyond expensive, like average house prices of a million. 125 there is like 15 in Waco. Context, Context, Context. Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:53, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Results and process are both important. Lila was there because the previous regime were not producing technical results. Failure after failure. Do I need to list them? Sue Gardner narrowed her focus on getting technical results, and sensibly passed as many non-technical functions as possible across to the community, like the North America education program and the Funds Dissemination Committee. She should have replaced the C-level technical team, and a number of others, before she left. Leaving that to the new ED was a poison chalice in my opinion.

Presently, on wikimedia-l and Andrew Lih's Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group, the discredited, discarded tech team, who treated us with such contempt and whom Sue failed to flush away, are rewriting the narrative. It seems there were no serious tech issues. Expecting them to treat us with respect is unreasonable - we're too rude and luddite to deserve it. Expecting them to generate and monitor key performance indicators is too much to ask of underpaid missionaries. It must have been a shock to these people, who had a job for life under Sue, to realise their jobs depend on them actually producing desirable results.

Perhaps Lila did the right thing in resigning, given the transparency issues around the Knowledge Engine and staff complaints that she was not communicating with them enough. Only a rigorous independent enquiry can clarify that.

Regarding the other frequent complaint, the persistent rethinking on the strategy, I think it was a good thing, though obviously very uncomfortable for the staff. Under her, the WMF was moving closer and closer to a responsive (to the community and readership) strategic planning process - including the 2015 Strategy Consultation, a project that collected input from the wider volunteer community (not just the most vocal few) and, most importantly, the readership. (Off topic but: surprisingly, although there were some different priorities in those two groups, there was a lot of congruence. If you define reliability as neutrality and accuracy, for readers and the wider volunteer community alike, the biggest concern is the unreliability of our offering.) --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 06:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it is funny in a sad way, that one heard so many criticisms of Sue, and then she steps down, in part in response to that criticism and it's de ja vu, someone new to beat-up on - Sue, at least, had the benefit of hiring, hiring, hiring, and it necessarily became 'now what' with all these people. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

@Nocturnalnow: According to [4], maintaining the WMF at SF rather than moving to LA is yet another way for bullying the poor underpaid staffers. Wouldn't they be more productive when being paid half an house each year, with a boat anchored at the rear of the garden ? Pldx1 (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm late as usual but am disappointed to hear this. Anthony makes some very good points. I also had the impression that Lila was actually willing to listen to and engage with the community, in stark contrast to Sue. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:35, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Gee, you mean Lila Tretikov never demeaned the community as in Sue Gardner's comment of "filthy T-shirt eating Doritos" (CBSnews.com); when I heard Sue say that comment, I was shocked at first, and then it made my blood run cold, as no wonder the MediaWiki software had major bugs unfixed for years because not only did she not care about Wikipedia, she evidentally deeply despised the editing community, even if she was lying to herself or others to claim otherwise. It makes you wonder what kind of mean-spirited leader would stereotype users in a biased way by saying, "in a filthy T-shirt eating Doritos". That was a giant "RED FLAG" and thank God she said it to reveal her true mindset, but she even had many WMF staffers fooled to think she was nice (to this day?). -Wikid77 (talk) 18:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Looks like Sue Gardner was talking about the hacker stereotype: "Sue Gardner: Women are less likely to kinda geek out at their computer for 10, 20, 40 hours. I mean, there's a reason that the stereotype of the hacker is a guy in a filthy T-shirt eating Doritos, right?" Nocturnalnow (talk) 00:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

But I thought our users while doing laundry were editing Wikipedia between the spin cycles, with hands on the keyboard not on Doritos, rather than watching TV or sleeping late thinking about filthy T-shirts. That might be why we have over 33 pages in "Category:Laundry detergents" (OMG). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Boris, the wider volunteer community has not really been aware of this drama (as opposed to the staff, the activists and the inner circle of volunteers who engage regularly with staff). A lot of it has played out on wikimedia-l and the Wikipedia Weekly Facebook group. Yes, Lila did give a damn about the communities, and also about the reliability of our content. But she lost a very important constituency - her staff. I really hope the WMF gets someone independent, with the right qualifications and experience, to undertake a rigorous, deep inquiry into how this all happened - including the Doc James dismissal and the hiring of Arnnon Geshuri. If they don't, I see more than just Lila's head rolling here. Those afore-mentioned players are fairly united in their desire for such an inquiry. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

An inquiry. That's a great, no downside, idea.... a rigorous independent inquiry might be really helpful going forward. Just brainstorming here and thinking that maybe the most experienced and respected volunteer community members, perhaps administrators and past ArbCom members, can make up the Board of Inquiry? Nocturnalnow (talk) 18:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

I nominate Risker as chair of the inquiry. She's pretty awesome with investigative projects. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

She is awesome. I'd personally like to see her on the board, but that's up to her and the voters of course. :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:02, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree she is awesome. In fact I pushed for her to be on the finalist list for board appointed members. And I would have voted for her if I given the option. JW what was your position than? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is an interesting idea. But I doubt the WMF would give a group of volunteers the unfettered access to confidential information needed for a meaningful inquiry. On the other hand it couldn't hurt to ask. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The first and absolutely necessary step toward healing and moving forward would be for Jimbo Wales to apologize and withdraw his uncivil "utter fucking bullshit" remark directed at Doc James, an elected representative of the community on the WMF board, until Doc was purged by the current incompetent board majority. Jimbo has had a month to ponder and reconsider that atrocious comment, and either withdraw it or furnish rock solid evidence to support it. You did neither, Jimbo, and instead chose to double down on your vulgar insulting incivility. It is very difficult to see a viable way forward when the failed, dysfunctional WMF board led by trustee for life Jimbo Wales treats community representatives this disrespectfully. The events of recent months illuminate clearly the need for a total housecleaning of the WMF board. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 09:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Repeating this in a different forum: The board is largely "new". Guy Kawasaki, Dariusz Jemielniak, Denny Vrandecic, and Kelly Battles have all joined the board in the last 10 months. James Heilman and Arnnon Geshuri were also appointed during the last 10 months but no longer hold seats. Arnnon has not yet been replaced; James was replaced by previous board member Maria Sedifari about four weeks ago. The chapters are in the process of selecting Board members for the seats currently held by Patricio Lorente and Frieda Brioschi, who may or may not be re-selected should they decide to run again. By the time Wikimania rolls around in June, it is entirely possible that only Jimmy, Alice Wiegand, and Maria will have more than 14 months of experience. This is a massive transformation of the Board which has usually only seen the turnover of one or (at most) two members in any given year. A better argument would be that massive membership change has a destabilizing effect on the Board, given that most of the issues that have come to light have occurred since the community-selected seats were completely changed over last July. I don't actually believe that, but it is a more logical conclusion than "we need a total housecleaning" because most of the seats have already changed over. I'm actually a bit more worried that we're now in a position where so few board members have much experience, because I believe several of the errors we have seen in the last 6-8 months are rooted in inexperience and excesses of caution or boldness. Risker (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Cullen. This is not the days of dueling where someone using strong language required heads to role. Sure, Jimbo should have used better words to convey how much he disagreed with James over the past, but this high-dudgeon of yours is rather over-the-top, even for the days of pre-internet Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Many of the issues predated July 2015 and the arrival of the new community elected members. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:44, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In my view what Risker said is really important. Especially the last sentence. And I don't have a sense that the Board itself has a tradition of good, standard governance and structure, to try even carry on through the turnover. Who is the Board Secretary to keep minutes, work with the chair to set the agenda, and make sure that all board members have all the information they need? (There is no secretary identified on the board's web page) There don't seem to be any standard standing subcommittes, like board development, nor even finance. (and something like a "transparency committee" would be a very good thing). A lot of the mess over the last few months seems also due to this kind of thing - different people having different information and different views on what even has transpired. On top of the turnover. This is some work I hope the board will do. Jytdog (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

This is going against the grain but a lot of this is "sausage making" stuff. Lila's position became untenable when it became public knowledge that the board reviewed her conduct and performance. Once that cat was out of the bag, resignation was only a matter of time. That has to stop. How that fits in with transparency will need to be worked out. --DHeyward (talk) 00:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Launch of second Inspire Campaign

Hey folks. The second Inspire Campaign has recently launched, with a focus on developing and promoting ideas to improve content review and curation in Wikimedia projects. On Wikipedia, we collaboratively manage vast repositories of knowledge. What ideas do you have to manage that knowledge to make it more meaningful and accessible? We invite everyone to participate and submit ideas, so please get involved today! The campaign runs until March 28th.

All proposals are welcome - research projects, technical solutions, community organizing and outreach initiatives, or something completely new! Funding is available from the Wikimedia Foundation for projects that need financial support. Constructive, positive feedback on ideas is appreciated, and collaboration is encouraged - your skills and experience may help bring someone else’s project to life. Check out the Inspire Campaign and help your project better represent the world’s knowledge! I JethroBT (WMF) 19:59, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

We have to fix the software, nobody else will

As Jimbo has welcomed various software talks on his talk-page, and now, after 5 years, we need to take more-direct action to fix bugs in the MediaWiki software. In particular, the Community Tech team is ready to fix diff problems (an added blank line seen as the next line totally changed, or no specific differences shown when a line is several hundred thousand characters long). -Wikid77 (talk) 21:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I have been noticing the diff problem, and it is really a pain to figure out what the change is when it does that! --David Tornheim (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

There have been considerable advances in computing minimal edit differences since the days of "diff". See Edit distance. Wikipedia should be using them. Wikimedia diffs displayed often indicate much larger changes than were actually made. John Nagle (talk) 23:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that we wait a bit until the WMF management issues sort themselves out, then start with a small, easy-to-implement, and noncontentious change. If we can actually open up a line of communication that results in the change either being implemented or rejected, then we can move on to larger things. Something really small, like changing the CR LF to LF in the HTML we output. See Newline. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:21, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Diff must span newlines & use multi-line resync

Naturally, the Community Tech team could become overwhelmed by diff problems because the current tactic of matching line-by-line will abandon phrase comparisons when a line is split with more newlines as manual line breaks. Instead, the diff program must be radically altered (eventually) to compare text across multi-line breaks, to show how one line was split into parts and then text altered in those separated parts. Also, the resync tactic will need to match partial (modified) lines, plus multiple lines as a look-ahead tactic for wp:wikitables where lines seem repeated for "|-" plus column styles "|valign=top|" as otherwise the diff would mismatch rows of a table as if all subsequent rows had changed, rather than just the fewer actual changes. As a phase-one improvement, just increase current diff to show changes between 10,000-character lines, which currently highlights the whole line as completely new text. Because of the complexity involved, the WP community needs to help explain the long-term solutions so the wp:developers don't give-up in frustration and go work some easier issues to avoid the workload pressures of fixing the vital diff operations. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2016, revised 11:52/12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Example diff of line over 10,000 characters

The megadiff problem was noted in pop singer's article "Tishma" of 28 Sep 2015 (later rewritten to have shorter lines), as an example diff of a line over 10,000 characters long, which could not pinpoint the phrases changed but instead showed the entire massive altered line as if totally new text (see: dif6701). To handle such long lines, the diff utility might need to be expanded with much larger line buffers to compare all 10,000 characters across the line. Meanwhile, splitting long lines can help diff of future revisions; here I split that long line in User:Wikid77/Tishma_test, as 7 parts in 2 revisions, to reveal the changed text was removal of a Bot-generated cite parameter: "|unused_data=@ http:/ /www.bangladesh-pratidin.com" (see: dif7822) hidden in the original long line. -Wikid77 (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2016, revised 11:39/12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Have submitted a phabricator bug for this? Most diff programs work on a line by line basis so this is quite expected output. There is a bug T123110 which seems to be for this exact problem. Adding this example to that bug might help gain some traction on the bug. --Salix alba (talk): 12:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The WMF Community Tech team is working to fix diff, as a high-priority project for Spring 2016. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've mentioned this thread in that bug.--Salix alba (talk): 14:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It is interesting that French page "fr:Pierre Boulez" also had a line of about 10,000 characters, and split into 2 parts would let diff work (see: dif7778), but later removed or rewritten as shorter paragraphs. -Wikid77 (talk) 22:09, 29 February, revised 21:11, 1 March & 05:06, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Selecting Preferences "WikEdDiff" does not work on some browsers. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Part 2) Wikipedia article: Murder of Anni Dewani

The following exchange took place in the now archived part 1 of this section:

///Quote///

I'm writing to bring your attention to a Wikipedia article which is needlessly inflicting emotional pain and suffering on the family of the murder victim who is the subject of the article. And the pain and suffering is being exacerbated by Wikipedia's refusal- despite repeated requests from multiple people- to abide, in the article, by its own ostensible standards for balance, NPOV, and consensus-based edits.

Jimmy Wales has been quoted as assuring the public that Wikipedia will not be permitted to be used as a platform for spreading public relations propaganda (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/technology/article4575800.ece). And certainly the published standards for Wikipedia articles purport to disallow such.

Therefore I was shocked to find that the article on the Murder of Anni Dewani has been written by someone who appears to be acting as a PR agent for the man...wait for it...accused of orchestrating her murder. Not as shockingly- since this is what PR agents do, isn't it?- the article is written from a decidedly NON-neutral point of view and suppresses salient facts about the murder that are inconvenient to the agenda being pursued in the article.

I'm herein requesting that Wikipedia a) remove the bias and agenda driven language from the article, and b) permit the inclusion of the proven, documented, and salient facts of the murder which are currently being censored from it. Precisely how this can be accomplished has been discussed and requested, ad naseum, by multiple people, on the article's talk page. But to no avail.Al Trainer (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I have reviewed the article briefly, being only familiar with the case as most people in the UK are, having read a lot of news reports, etc. And it looks quite fair to me as it stands. If our complainant had a specific concern, i.e. a specific example of a neutral statement backed up by reliable sources that people are not being allowed to include in the article, that would be interesting. And if there is proof or even real evidence of someone engaging in paid advocacy, then that would be valuable to see as well, although it should probably be emailed rather than posted on-wiki.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

To: User:Jimbo Wales A. Calculatingly crafted PR of course is liable to give the impression (however specious that impression might be) of being "fair". In particular to people (such as yourself, as you've mentioned) who are not intimately familiar with the subject matter at hand. But by any reasonably objective editorial standard the article on the "Murder of Anni Dewani" is un-fair. In fact, so patently so, it can be proven in just the following few sentences: Premise 1) To present something that is a proven fact as merely a theory is unfair. Further, to present it as a discredited theory is flagrantly unfair; Premise 2) Multiple courts have affirmed that it is a proven fact that Anni's killing was a planned murder for hire that was staged to appear as a random carjacking. No court has ever ruled that it was not a murder for hire; Premise 3) The Wikipedia article presents the proven fact of Anni's killing being a murder for hire as if this fact was, rather, not only merely a theory, it presents it as if it is a discredited theory; Conclusion) Therefore, not only is the article unfair, it is flagrantly unfair.

B. Having established above that the article is unfair (and should therefore be revised), a balanced and neutral recitation of the salient facts of this topic has indeed already been suggested (and endorsed by multiple people) for the lede of the article. It is the lede paragraph seen at this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Murder_of_Anni_Dewani&oldid=701824448. The sources cited are court documents and mainstream media reports. Every word of this suggested lede is an established fact, and supported by not only by the sources cited, by a multitude of others that could also have been cited.

C. That the author of the current article on the "Murder of Anni Dewani" is acting in the capacity of a public relations operative is supported by considerable empirical evidence. To which email address should this evidence be sent, please?209.52.88.22 (talk) 01:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

///Unquote///

Jimbo Wales (talk), in (A) above, the proof of the article's unfairness was presented in concise, scrupulously rational, and deductively sound terms. Do you not agree with this proof? If not, why not? If you do agree, will you please take some measure to have the current biased and harmful article corrected? As you also requested in your previous comment, a neutral, consensus based alternative lede has been provided in the above link in (B) above.24.244.23.105 (talk) 01:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lane99/Al_Trainer/ahindocha/Factsnotlies/Noanon/Forbeshighland/Kesadilla22, your multiple sock/meat puppets have been banned for good reason. Continuing to reinvent yourself in the form of anonymous IP's is not improving your credibility and is unlikely to impress Jimbo Wales. Jimbo is also unlikely to be impressed at your canvassing for meat puppets on social media, advertising the fact that you have engaged Jimbo on this issue and begging meat puppets to join your cause. If you are going to reference sections of previous content, then at least paste the complete conversation which includes multiple seasoned Wikipedia editors suggesting that your incorrigible sock/meat puppetry needs to cease and that your protestations about the "murder for hire" theory retaining credibility, carry no weight. (A) above is nothing new. (A) is an unintelligible recitation of your same old rhetoric that has had you topic banned and sock puppet blocked on over ten prior occasions. How many more times are you going to repeat yourself before you accept that there is no consensus for your viewpoint? You do understand, I assume, that consensus from your own sock/meat puppets does not count? With best regards. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

More ad homminen attacks. As well as a clear failure to assume good faith. Further violations of Wikipedia policy to add to the list. On a positive note, you have tacitly admitted here that if it is truly a proven fact, and not just a "theory" as you speciously claim, that Anni Hindocha's killing was a murder for hire, then the article has been shown to be biased. The courts have ruled in the cases of Tongo, Qwabe, and Mngeni that it is a proven fact that Anni's killing was a murder for hire. This has been explained countless times on the article's talk page. As such, by your own tacit admission, the article is biased. You will know explain why you personally don't accept the courts' findings. And Wikipedia will then decide if their articles will be based on neutral recitations of the proven facts of a case, or the agenda driven sophistry of PR agents.64.114.129.229 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:50, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Tongo/Qwabe- No findings were made. No trial. No witnesses. No evidence. No verifying of the confessions. These were merely plea hearings rubber stamping pre agreed sentences for guilty pleas. Confessions accepted at face value.

Mngeni trial - court accepted evidence of Qwabe and Mbolombo at face value. It later transpired that Qwabe/Mbolombo evidence had been perjured. Mbolombo even admitted that his evidence had been filled with lies.

Therefore what this sock puppeteer terms "proven facts" are actually nothing more than fabricated stories told by lying criminals. This position is avowed by the court in S v Dewani. Paragraph 23.1 of the court's judgement in S v Dewani explicitly states that the only crimes that had been proven to have been planned in advance were the crimes of kidnapping and robbery.

"23.1 It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences"

Paragraph 23.1 is irreconcilable with sock puppeteer's claim that this crime was "proven" to be a murder for hire. In actual fact, it shows sock puppeteer's claim to be patently false. I am not sure what else needs to be said on the issue. Dewanifacts (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WMF mission - the unstated part about self-preservation

Just a quick thought. I think one of the key challenges for the WMF itself, is how it can stay relevant. Lila's long statement includes this:

As we matured, we encountered two fundamental, existential challenges. <snip> The other is external and is emerging from our own value of freely licensed content: Many companies copy our knowledge into their own databases and present it inside their interfaces. While this supports wider dissemination, it also separates our readers from our community. Wikipedia is more than the raw content, repurposed by anyone as they like. It is a platform for knowledge and learning, but if we don't meet the needs of users, we will lose them and ultimately fail in our mission.

I read that, and thought, "Really? Which part of the WMF mission is she talking about failing there?" I realized that it is the unstated part - that the WMF itself should persist, grow, remain relevant. Most every organization wants that. It is an unstated thing, generally.

And I thought - "existential challenge" to WMF? As in "live or die" crisischallenge? What is that? What Lila doesn't say, is maybe that the way things are going, people get the content we create elsewhere, readers don't come to the WM/WP sites so much any more, donations fall, WMF itself cannot grow, maybe even shrinks.

I think that is a big deal to the WMF board and ED.

When there are existential threats, people think about self-preservation. So - how do they keep the platform relevant, is #1. I think that is what the "knowledge engine" is/was all about - making the wikipedia.org portal, and search results produced by it, why people come to Wikipedia. They want that, so the WMF itself can persist and remain relevant.

I think, that maybe that has nothing much to do, with supporting what we content-creators do. It is one reason I have been saying that I have this strong sense, that the WMF seems to be ready to throw the editing community under the bus (or push us to the back of the bus? bad metaphors) - to "hijack the platform", as I have written. (whether this is "paranoid" crazy talk or not, I don't know, as the WMF is not sharing its actual strategy with us in any clear way)

Does the editing community overall agree that the WMF is an "existential crisis?challenge"? (outside of the issue's with Lila's leadership - I mean bigger picture stuff that hiring Lila was meant to address in part)

Is what the WMF sees as a life-threat a bad thing to us at all? I don't know.

Personally I have just wanted the servers and software to work so we can publish our content and get it out there, and haven't even thought about the WMF much at all before James got dismissed. Not really part of the world I see, even - just something in the background. I am even unaware if donations are falling and the WMF is shrinking (outside of people leaving because they are so unhappy now) .

This is one place where I think there are not shared values or priorities, or even a shared sense of reality, between the editing community and the WMF leadership.

This may be obvious to tons of people here. It is just something I have been getting clarity on. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC) (striking, valid point. i can acknowledge and change when people point out i made a mistake Jytdog (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC))

I recommend being really careful about accuracy. Don't carelessly slide from "challenge" to "crisis". There are many challenges which are not crises. I recently joined the board of The Guardian. They face a big challenge - revenues are much less than expenses, and the trust fund which covers the difference won't last forever. By some estimates, there are 8-10 years of money left. That's a big existential challenge, but it isn't (yet) a crisis.

Our movement - dedicated originally to creating a free encyclopedia for everyone, in their own language, and dedicated more broadly to "a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge" faces real existential challenges. They are not (yet) crises, so we should not run around in panic. But we should be serious and aware of changes in the world which will impact, negatively in some cases, our mission.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

re: board of The Guardian: congrats, good cause, great news provider. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:31, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

• The Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia™ idea was all about creating an app or a function that would drive readers to the Wikipedia website, where they would be exposed to donation banners saying that unless people donated money there would be engineers going without coffee and the servers would stop running, or whatever the A/B tested winning nonsense line of the year was. And then the money would continue to flow and the engineering staff would continue to grow, and the sun would never set on the San Francisco empire. Of course, we the core volunteers care little about empire building. We want the software to continue working, to be improved in an evolutionary manner without disruptive bugs, for our backs to be covered if we are sued for trying to maintain NPOV, for research resources to be made available for us, and for filters and bots to be developed to help us perform our work. This is a big element of the fallout over the Knowledge Engire — we have no intrinsic need as encyclopedists to take on Google's commercial search engine just because they've figured out how to monetize our non-commercial work in a way that perhaps endangers the multi-millions that WMF rakes in each year. Carrite (talk) 15:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@Carrite: I wouldn't belittle it like that - bypassing our site means that there are fewer new editors, not just less in donations. Still, I think we should have pinned our hopes on hooking, not crooking - only a solid web of quality content ensures that search engines continue to find it necessary to deliver readers here. I'd rather Wikipedia have fewer restrictions, cover less notable events, allow more social media like use of the site by individuals to encourage their interest - compete more with Yelp than Google, even. I mean, if we wanted, we could throw out WP:NOT, literally have a map of your hometown with pictures of all the local businesses - while that of course invites unwholesome influences, they would be on a smaller scale than the ones that have "notable" products. We could have a hierarchy of content, some of which is more personal experience and unreliable reference than the hardcore encyclopedia, with proper disclaimers and warnings. There's no reason why you should have to be born a robot to be allowed to snarf up content on the web that isn't suitable for a proper encyclopedia article! Wnt (talk) 17:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I don't think of improving internal search and discovery to be primarily about revenue and page views. Those things are important, to be sure, but they are never the most important things. As Wnt says, the visibility of our work, the usability of our site, the usefulness of our navigation, impacts our work in lots of different ways direct and indirect, including attracting quality editors and retaining quality editors. (I'm not saying I agree with all of Wnt's suggestions - I don't, although I encourage people to brainstorm openly like this.)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, one could make a statistical argument that the growth of Google's "Knowledge Boxes" or whatever they call them is positively correlated to editor growth, not negatively correlated. There is no statistical evidence whatsoever for a negative correlation. The very early thinking about "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia" (the actual first name!) revolved almost entirely around needing to come up with a compelling feature that brought readers to the WMF site (implicitly, so they could eventually be solicited to donate money). I'm not being cynical, this is historically accurate. Carrite (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. I think it there is very clear and compelling evidence that improvements in the quality of Google's search results has resulted in decreasing traffic for us. 10 years ago if you typed "How old is Tom Cruise?" (or variants on that) Google didn't know the answer, but they sent people to Wikipedia. Now, they just tell people the answer - because their machines have read and digested Wikipedia. On one level, that's totally great - that's part of why our work is freely licensed - we want people to use it to make the world better in ways big and small. We aren't a commercial business trying to maximize page views. On another level, we need to be objective and acknowledge what it means for attracting editors and - yes - donors.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:13, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

@JW. It's not really an opinion I assert, it is a demonstrable statistical relationship (albeit a counterintuitive one). To wit: Knowledge boxes are maybe 3 years old. The count of core volunteers has improved, not declined over those three years. Therefore the statistical correlation is positive rather than negative. Proving that is just a matter of showing the statistical arithmetic. Now page views, those I will give you are way off — which raises the interesting hypothesis that there is little connection between page view numbers and volunteer numbers. Lest you worry too much, there has never been a decline in WMF donation levels, Google knowledge boxes or not... Carrite (talk) 17:18, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think the relationship between page view numbers and volunteer numbers is a loose relationship, but there is no doubt in my mind that there is a connection.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

As quality has improved so we have become less efficient at turning readers into editors, and occasional editors into frequent editors. Readers in the last few years are less likely to see vandalism and typos, in almost every respect that is a good thing, but it does mean we need new ways to recruit editors, and the proportion of ratio of readers to editors is increasing, and that's just readers on PCs; Despite the best efforts of our mobile team, Wikipedia has a much higher ratio of readers to editors on mobile. So there is a correlation between readers and editors, but the ratio is increasing. ϢereSpielChequers 18:03, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Speaking only as a sample of one, I click through from Google to Wikipedia much less often now because of their knowledge box and Google Graph info box. (I missed a flight from London to SF because Google's "knowledge" box sent me to the wrong terminal.)

Yes, if our work gets pushed so far back behind re-users' portals that readers almost never land on wikipedia.org sites, Wikipedia as such will become a failed experiment. But that won't happen. People will always want thorough coverage of topics and issues. It seems inevitable, though, that our traffic will decline significantly. The best counter to that is to make our articles even more awesome - by that, I mean improve the quality and rigour of our offering. I don't support Wnt's notion of becoming more like Yelp.

By the way, Wikidata is taking information from Wikipedia and feeding it to Google, Bing etc. without requiring attribution. At least now, when I see Wikipedia content in Google's Knowledge Graph box, I can click the link to Wikipedia for more. With Wikidata just raiding our data and pouring it into commercial portals via the back door with no attribution required, they seem to be accelerating the process you describe as a "real existential challenge" to Wikipedia and the movement. Good for Denny's employer, not so good for the WMF that relies on the rivers of gold flowing to it through Wikipedia banners. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:26, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

As with JW above, you are observing the true phenomenon that WP's page-view numbers are way off due to the Google info box things and postulating a problem which may not even exist based upon that. Page-view numbers are down, but donations are way up. These two things, which intuitively seem to have a relationship apparently do not have such a relationship at all. WMF should start surveying its donors at the time of their donations as to why they are donating — although I doubt they will do that because it is a set of answers they probably do not want to hear. But if one wants to learn who is donating and why, that's how one would find out... Carrite (talk) 17:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Two quick points - I am told reliably by the fundraising staff that donations were only up this year due to more aggressive efforts. It's getting harder to raise money in no small part because of declining readership, but also because of the shift to mobile. So far this hasn't meant anything too serious - we used to be a LOT more aggressive, so ratcheting up the aggressiveness a touch isn't too horrifying. But there are things to worry about for the future. The other point is more of a question - why on earth do you think that the WMF wouldn't want to know why people are donating at the time of their donation? You seem pretty cynical about the WMF and money so I'd think you'd assume that they would want to know that so they can get more money out of people in the future, etc.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Approaching the same pool of existing and potential donors with increasingly aggressive asks is normal for fundraising teams, especially if you keep setting them higher targets or even similar ones, year-on-year. It's not always productive; you can burn out too many of your donors and be left desperately pressurising the remainder while in trying to find new ones, you unintentionally pester and alienate too many of your old ones. It might be better to assume that recent peaks aren't sustainable and that you'll retain more donors with less aggression. That means lowering targets despite your managers' readiness to set themselves higher ones (that's the attitude you hired them for, after all) and instead assuming WMF income will fall and budgeting accordingly, paying attention to maintaining the core. Of course, if you're not careful it leads to a drive to find alternative grant funding, but that risks changing direction to suit the priorities of the grant-makers. NebY (talk) 16:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• This is a great discussion. I would just like to focus here on the gap in missions. What editors here are saying, is that from their perspective - if WMF's goal was primarily to support and grow its flagship (the encyclopedia) - and keep it relevant, the WMF would have made different choices. "WMF will remain relevant" is not part of the mission of the movement. It is an unstated part of the WMF's mission that I think moved to the fore.

This comes down to the board itself. Every entity eventually starts working on self-preservation, regardless of why it was originally set up. Its why we can't get rid of government agencies once they are set up. I think this is also what happens when you get significant voices on the board not coming from or not in touch with the movement. Folks who serve on for-profit boards are wired to make that organization grow and flourish. They don't even question if that is a good thing or the right thing - it is just what they are do.

I think this is part of what went wrong with Lila; nobody articulated that a big part of her mission seems to have been to "remake the WMF so that the WMF as an entity remains relevant and flourishes" - to make it a relevant and important tech company (and freedom to "break eggs" along the lines of what George Herbert wrote here). She apparently didn't execute on that well, but part of the problem was, I think, unarticulated mission clash.

Now, post-Lila, might be a good time for the board and the community, to look at the board and what its mission is going forward. Jytdog (talk) 19:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I think you are onto something, and I think there's a structural issue here that really doesn't have anything to do with Lila. It's a common problem faced by virtually all nonprofit organizations - that self-preservation becomes a value in its own right, separate from the mission.

But I don't think your diagnosis is entirely correct. In particular "I think this is also what happens when you get significant voices on the board not coming from or not 'in touch with' the movement" strikes me as too simplistic. One of the things that leads to organization failure is internal group-think. One of the great things about having outside voices on the board is that they can often be the people who look objectively at current practice, then over at the mission statement, then back to current practice, and say "Hey, this doesn't match." Obviously these board members have to be on board with the mission and have the right goals, but that part is pretty easy.

Board members from the movement - and I count myself among them - can be too "in the trenches" to step back and see things in a new way. So it's healthy to have a mix.

One final thought - although as I said and you said, self-preservation can become an implicit goal in and of itself, that isn't always and automatically a bad thing. The WMF really is important to our mission, and one of the things that is worth thinking about is how to make sure it remains relevant (i.e. remains useful in support of the mission) rather than going off track, and how to make sure that it survives for as long as we need it. Self-preservation becomes a problem when, as I have seen in other non-profits, the organization starts chasing grant money not because it's relevant for the mission, but because the organization is following the whims of the funders in order to get funds in order to continue to survive.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:35, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, to the extent preservation is implied, it is always implied in an incorporation - indeed, I would not call it implied at all, it is an explicit reason to organize this way - so that long after all are gone, the corporation carries on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply, Jimmy. I hear you on the wisdom of building in an antidote to groupthink, and having people who can look objectively at what's happening and the mission. but i am not sure if it is "easy", with regard to finding people who can be on board with the mission and having the right goals - especially here, where process is so much a part of the mission. Everybody knows, that people - especially very successful people - have an "envelope" - a set of assumptions about the world and a set of filters that classify the torrent of stuff that comes at them, and they have a way they operate that got them the success they now have. I think it would be pretty hard to find people - especially successful people from the for-profit world that you would want on the board - who would be sensitive to the value we place on process and how that affects the success of any project here. I think that would be hard. This is the kind of thing, I think the board should consider looking at itself about. Jytdog (talk) 05:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't think I can agree that "process is so much a part of the mission". When I compare pages such as WP:IAR, WP:NOTBURO, WP:PPP, and foundation:Mission statement to this claim, I hear "One of these things is not like the others..." WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing Thanks for pointing that out. Here are the values that WMF and the community prize. Many of those are about process, like Transparency, and see also the very last sentence in that document. To the extent that strategies to realize the mission are put together and executed in a way that conflicts with those values, there will be trouble. I hope that is more clear. Jytdog (talk) 18:19, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a risk of overestimating the importance of this to fundraising and underestimating the importance to our mission. We have funding reserves, the cost of hosting large databases is falling, only a small part of the budget is spent on "keeping the servers running". If we had to shift to emails to past donors and major grant applications there could be quite a bit of money coming in for as long as Wikipedia was still heavily used. But our edit buttons remain our near universal way of recruiting new volunteers. If we lose our edit buttons to mirror sites or "clutter free" skins then we have a few years at most to find a new way to recruit new members of this community. ϢereSpielChequers 16:27, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Inspire Campaign #2

(tangent: "#Launch of second Inspire Campaign")

This is a 2nd thread about the above topic, without causing that thread to auto-archive, to give Jimbo a chance to reply there, in case this thread pauses for over 1 day and archives off-page. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Random-jury tool to review content

When discussing a random-jury tool to help decide issues, then I remembered the wording in many technical pages has complified as more impenetrable jargon, despite many discussions to broaden the wording for general readers, but it seems the decision to reword the jargon is controlled by the same self-selected editors who would describe a triangle as "a tri-partite polytope projected into two dimensions below the tetrangonal scope". We must shift the power to reword pages away from obsessive groups who worship the jargon promoted in lede sections of those pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:01, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

@Wikid77: The random jury idea to gauge and perhaps address readability issues sounds interesting; could I persuade you to start an idea discussing it over at the campaign? I'll be sending out another round of messaging in the middle of the month to encourage folks to review ideas, so I expect you'll be able to better develop, revise, and maybe develop a pilot or implementation plan with other folks the idea there. I JethroBT (WMF) (talk) 09:53, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I have been reading the other suggestions over there, and I noticed another person mentioned some technical articles which have become almost "incomprehensible" and where I suspect more unnecessary jargon-stuffing of unusual terms into the lede sections of pages, as if to force wider usage of a peculiar term by cramming it into the top paragraphs of many, many pages. It reminds me of the recomprisers who demand that numerous pages which actually don't "comprises" anything will be "comprising" and "comprising" for years and years and years. Perhaps there is a pattern of obsessive behavior which can be detected by reviewing the edit histories. I think the problems of jargon-stuffing have persisted for over 10 years. -Wikid77 (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Seriously displeased about the new survey...

I just visited Edward Elgar and was asked to fill in a survey designed to help improve Wikipedia. I followed the link and was confronted with 3 questions - so far, so good. The third one was a false dichotomy, but that's par for the course for surveys. But then I click "Continue" and on the next page find Note that by clicking the "Submit" button, you give us permission to connect your survey responses with other information about your Wikipedia browsing session - I'd say this is something I would very much want to know before I go to the trouble of thinking about answers. Not a cool move. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:02, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Stephan Schulz. Note that you could get that information plus more details if you would click on "Privacy" in the bottom of the survey widget before you accept taking part in the survey by clicking Yes. Adding the extra paragraph before you click the submit button was one way for us to give the potential participant another chance to know what will happen to their data if they submit the survey. We could put this information on top of the survey page instead, however, we wanted the participants to be in the mood of the article they were just reading when responding to the questions and adding the extra information on top of the page would distract them and could have serious impact on the type of responses collected for the research. For a participant like yourself who had not clicked the Privacy link before going to the survey but is concerned about submitting survey data for such research, we have an unfortuante situation that you put the time but eventually you decide not to submit the data. I apologize for that. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 18:00, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi LZia (WMF), thanks for explaining the trade-offs. I'm still not convinced that this is the best approach, but I am somewhat mollified. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Happy to hear that my explanation helped, even if just a bit, Stephan Schulz. I, too, think we should be able to do better, but I'm not sure how. If you ever want to discuss this further and share some ideas, please drop a line in here. It may be a good exercise to figure out how an ideal such survey should work assuming, at least initially, that technology is not a limitation. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 16:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What was the topic of the survey? Carrite (talk) 17:36, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Carrite. We are doing research to understand why people read Wikipedia. You can read more about the research here. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 17:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

How long do you store browsing histories? EllenCT (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi EllenCT. Sorry for the delay, I had not received a notification for your question and just saw it. I have responded to it here. --LZia (WMF) (talk) 17:10, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Create tool for random-jury selection

Introduction

I agree with Lila Tretikov that software development is the key to massive improvement of Wikipedia and Wikimedia content. Besides using better AI techniques to detect/remove copyvio text which has been copy/pasted into pages, other smart tools could be developed. A major advance would be a "random-jury selection tool" to wikimail perhaps 50 people to debate an issue from pools of hundreds/thousands of interested regular users.

For years, WP issues have been decided by self-selected groups of intense users, due to inability to wp:CANVAS potential !voters in a random manner, without seeming bias in notifications. The result has been many wp:TAGTEAM gang decisions which have acted as a "jury of sneers" to denigrate editors such as myself, with 2 degrees in computer science, having completely written several macro text editors and graphics editors, as if I do not know what templates or software products would be useful. The decision to mandate wp:DASHes into hyphenated titles was also forced in a relatively small group of self-selected users, later claimed as too much trouble to reverse.

Instead, if whatever-language wikipedia had a random-jury selection tool, then perhaps a wider cross-section of their editing community could be involved in decisions. After a few years, then policies such as wp:CANVAS might be reduced to allow broader, randomized consensus on major issues, without hoping enough people would sacrifice months of time to obsess about a wp:RfC which relatively few people knew was pending. As evidenced by websites such as Google Search or YouTube, software can change the world, make an unknown person famous, or discover a little-known talent to become a cultural superstar. Some software tools can become "killer apps" in their impact to transform the workplace. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I totally agree that we need jury selection (which I mentioned above in this comment) instead of the horrible state of affairs of self-selected users making the decisions and there being no differentiation between interested and disinterested parties in the decisions. I did not realize there were others who have been contemplating similar solutions. That's good to hear. Smallbones seemed to agree on the need for some kind of reform here. Can we start a project or task force to address this? It is something that bothered me from early on when I started working on Wikipedia and it seems as bad as ever. I thought that trying to participate more in the noticeboards as a neutral third party to break up petty disputes was the best way I could contribute to address the problem I saw that you describe above, but the gangs and their sympathetic admins immediately chased me off. And that's why I too have been thinking jury duty is the way to go. --David Tornheim (talk) 11:28, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Wikid77 - This is an excellent idea. Carrite (talk) 12:16, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I've long favored this idea. There are some details I would suggest though. There's too much room for distrust when an issue has widespread political significance, and so the procedure needs to be designed to dispel all doubt.

• The random numbers have to be genuinely, provably random - i.e. we say in advance how the generation is going to be done, and base it on a public lottery drawing, or preferably two from different countries. Otherwise he who controls the pseudorandom number generator controls Wikipedia - whether anyone at Wikipedia knows it or not!
• Notification of selection should be as a public on-wiki comment, because emails sent by some individual out of public view conceivably could be selectively mislaid.
• The random selection should be per edit rather than per user. We never really know how many usernames someone has, and more to the point, I think that the people who contribute more should have more say. (Possibly, we might agree on some namespaces to be excluded from consideration, like User talk...) Selecting random recent edits also ensures we get active users.
• Users with certain administrative statuses at the time of selection subject to blocks or certain kinds of topic bans might be excluded from the pool, but we must agree not to allow any future administrative action - even blocking! - to disqualify the juror from voting. Otherwise, jury selection could come to be dreaded, as rogue admins watch the conversation and start digging into the background of any juror who makes a comment they don't like.

Wnt (talk) 13:38, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I like the idea. I'll respond to just a few points.

• I don't think worrying about the provenance of the random number generator is a very sensible place to worry, other than that it be a typical random number generator in Linux. The vectors of attack on such a system to game Wikipedia surely lie elsewhere, so preventing implementation based on a fear that would involve requiring random numbers being generated from different countries is not really optimal.
• We should absolutely be aware that putting a call out for 50 random volunteers will not result in 50 people responding - active wikipedians will be much more likely to respond, for example, but often times even they will decide that they aren't sufficiently knowledgable or interested to weigh in on an issue.
• Rather than excluding admins, I think it will often make sense to include them more often. They tend to be highly experienced users trusted by the community. There are sometimes complaints that the admins are tyrants, etc., but these generally have little merit. Rogue admins are seldom the real issue.
• It would be good to limit the use of the tool somehow, in terms of sheer numbers. If people start getting bombarded with 20 requests a day, it will just be a nuisance and people will tend to opt out of it. It should be reserved for use such that most active users only receive 1 request per month max.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• random # generator I agree with Jimbo that the nature of the random # generator will not likely be an issue, and that a typical pseudo-random # generator found in most programming languages should be sufficient and can be made publicly visible. The choice of seed would be key, such as date and time as received on a particular WMF server, to make it hard to know or control what seed would be used. Also easy to verify the results after the seed was chosen. Perhaps adding a layer of public key encryption between the editor requesting a jury and the jury administration bot would further make it impossible for anyone to know or control what the seed is before it is chosen. Is there a way for two people to flip a coin using public key encryption? I do not think there is such a thing as a "truly random # generator" or being able to prove one if you had it. I think you can prove something isn't random or how well it stands to randomized tests, but not the reverse.
• participation I agree that editors may not want to do jury duty. To address this I believe it should be made mandatory (just like if you want to vote in real life), if you want to continue editing. Once the system is implemented, each editor would be required to submit their name to the jury pool before making any more further edits. If they fail to show up for jury duty, they would lose editing privileges until they participate. There might be some liberal provisions to allow unavailable for jury duty, such as going on vacation, or deferring jury duty if selected at a bad time. Or asking to be taken off the case because of COI, or feeling lack of competence, etc., just like in real life, and having an admin. on duty required to rule on the request. And like in real life, the editor(s) of the dispute might be allowed a small # of pre-emptive disqualifications of jurors without a showing of cause. Yes, that could be pretty complex, but if done correctly most of it could be done by automatically under clear timelines.
• complexity/frequency What I described in the above paragraph could be fairly sophisticated and have a time line as long as an ArbCom case. For major issues, it might be worth it. There could be different levels, with different timings. One might ask for a simple jury, where only a few editors need show up, or a full blown case, like ArbCom. And maybe limit the # of requests for jury decision per editor.
• seniority/# of edits in selection I do not think selection should be based on # of edits or length of service. I disagree with Jimbo about putting admins. on--they have plenty of power/authority as it is. We need fresh neutral eyes for content disputes, not people with entrenched unshakable views to have extra power. Witnesses can always speak in the witness box area, and that can include anyone, regardless of experience--as we have now, but the jury would be making the call, not the involved parties and self-selected participants in a case. For policy issues, a jury is probably not the best way to handle things. Then I agree that experience would be more important.
• testing I agree such a model would need to be tested in a very limited venue, and some general agreement on those to be the guinea pigs would be advisable. With feedback, the system could be expanded. I think if we found an appropriate notice board. Or took every Nth case for that noticeboard, or let requesters opt for a jury would be a way to start.

--David Tornheim (talk) 00:37, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This seems on the face of it like a good idea, provided there is some basic gatekeeping to stop it being used frivolously. Guy (Help!) 15:01, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I will emphasize the points of both Jimbo and Guy that there should be some limitations. This ought to be natural as any rollout of any new idea ought to be tested in phases, and gradually ramped up. (Unfortunately, we haven’t always followed such rules, but we can this time.)--S Philbrick(Talk) 15:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

@Jimbo Wales: I don't think a random number generator attack is out of the question, especially if the jury mechanism ever gets used to decide things like whether to have a site blackout over some surveillance bill an order of magnitude worse than anything proposed before. Even ordinary hackers might have both the means and some obscure but compelling reason to influence how the site is maintained. Wnt (talk) 16:17, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I think juries should primarily deal with behavioral and content disputes, not policy matters. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Also, I apologize for being unclear above - I wasn't suggesting that admins be denied a chance to vote, but that they not be allowed to remove voters by finding something to block them about. (I'm assuming that these "votes" will be prolonged discussions where jurors get to make the ultimate decision, but will listen to one another and any parties involved first, thereby giving others some time to see which way they are leaning) Wnt (talk) 16:51, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

I am okay with limiting jurors to lay editors--admins. have a enough to do as it is. But I agree that there is reason to be concerned about "jury tampering" as you described. Blocks after jury selection should probably not apply to jury participation unless the admin. overseeing the jury finds them to be disrupting the jury process. One of the things I really don't like is that admins. are not assigned duties randomly but just chose to do whatever they feel like, in the same way that noticeboards are self-selected. A recent decision that I described above I found rather outrageous, where a major decision was made by an admin. that many--including myself--believed was involved and therefore had COI. I much prefer the American court system where docket #'s are assigned to cases and the selection of judge is neither up to the judge nor the person filing the case. That would really help here. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:53, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

While this may look like a good idea, it's also a way of leaving the decisions to people with no particular knowledge nor interest in a topic. Is that really what we want? In a "real" jury, people are forced to sit through a a long and complex legal process, guided by professional lawyers and judges, confronted with expert witnesses, and instructed by the the judge. And the results are still not very good. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

As someone who works in and studies law, I respectfully disagree. I think the legal system (dispute resolution system) we have in the U.S. is far better and fairer than its counterpart on Wikipedia, which looks far more like the Wild West. In the U.S. too many people think that what they see on TV has a reasonable connection with how the legal system actually works. (See [5] and [6]). My legal courses quickly showed me that the legal system is far different and more reasonable than what I saw on TV. I quickly realized the representations made about the McDonald coffee cup case could not be accurate based on what I was learning. With minimal research I quickly found that what the media said about it and what actually happened had little in common. The media made it sound crazy that someone would sue for >$1M because coffee is too hot--seems reasonable. Until you find out the feeble elderly woman, sitting in the passenger seat of a parked car, sustained 3rd degree burns, 2 weeks hospital stay and skin grafting, and that when she asked McDonald's to help her with the bills, they told her to piss off. And that it was not her, but the jury that was so upset with McDonald's callous attitude about it, that they wanted a punishment McDonald's with 1 day's sales of coffee. Should we be surprised that McDonald's and corporations whose advertisements fund the media are more than happy if the media makes the plaintiffs and their attorneys look unbelievably selfish and opportunistic and leave out the plaintiff's version when they can make it sound more outrageous? So, no the court system works far better than the general public realizes. But our dispute resolution on Wikipedia undoubtedly have serious problems. At least our coffee case article is far better than what I heard on TV! --David Tornheim (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we'd get far with the McD coffee case. But what about O. J. Simpson vs. Albert Woodfox? The best justice money can buy? Yes, our system is not perfect. But I'm not convinced that leaving decisions to less informed "juries" will be an improvement. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 02:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

^The two cases you give are just typical media cases. Most cases are not like this. Please review the articles I provided above.

I'm not convinced the gangs of self-proclaimed "informed" editors are always as expert as they want us to believe. With anonymity and no provision for qualification of expertise, an anonymous editor can make up any b.s. they want about how "expert" they are (or that they have no COI) and it is unverifiable. These self-appointed experts also think it is okay to say others they disagree with on content are "incompetent", including people who are actual experts. In contentious cases, I trust a person who has never seen the RS before to read it and summarize it over the kinds of behavior I have seen by the "informed" and highly invested editors who have decided a priori what is in the WP:RS and throw a temper tantrum of numerous bogus allegations and distractions if you point out they are wrong or lying. Wikipedia is supposed to be verifiable, so in most cases lay people should be able to read and verify what is in the RS matches what is in the article.

Now, I will admit, material such as Maxwell's equations or Schrödinger equation, few people with a basic high school education would be able to read any of the RS for the article, or understand much of the article itself. I do wonder to what extent Wikipedia was designed to require such specialized knowledge for editing or reading articles such as these. Compare these with the treatment of Britanica: [7] and [8] which permits the high school reader to walk away with a minimal understanding of these extremely important equations. ---David Tornheim (talk) 13:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Stephan Schultz: Fair point, and this does also raise another risk. One of the advantages of current policy is that it doesn't matter how popular something is, if it is objectively wrong, we portray it as such. A "jury" of randomly selected Wikipedians may be inclined to vote on what they feel about the subject, rather than the actual evidence. Take GMOs: what would Wikipedia be like if, say, a "jury" voted to allow Séralini's findings to be represented as fact, despite the evidence that they are scientifically unsupportable? We know that things like homeopathy, reiki, chiropractic and so on are popular - we also know they are laden with bullshit. Currently Wikipedia does not do votes and does not allow numerical superiority to override verifiability. Would that change? Several of the people agitating for this kind of reform are known to support fringe views, and their problem with Wikipedia is that they perceive our reality-based bias as unacceptable - they characterise the reaction to their POV-pushing as bullying, uncivil, non-neutral and so on - it's everybody else who is the problem. There are definite risks in this proposal unless it is implemented in a way that ensures policy, not popularity, always wins. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Wow. Your true spirit is showing. You obviously don't trust the ordinary randomly selected editor to review the evidence (WP:RS) and make the right decision. They apparently can't be bothered to follow our rules. They obviously don't know the Truth™ and won't find it even if you show them the RS. You on the other hand do have access to the Truth™, and you have admin. tools and the threat of using them to prove it. Those who disagree with you are just pushing WP:Fringe views and are a bunch of advocates who don't get it, pretty much like the other average ordinary users who can't be trusted either. It would probably be better if none of these clueless people were here and you and those who think like you do took over. In fact, the entire project of Wikipedia is in question with the presumption that "anyone" can edit, because after all, as you said, they can't be trusted to look at the RS: they will just favor their beliefs instead. This looks to me like the classic fallacy of Argument from authority, where you are the self-identified authority and everyone else who doesn't think like you do, well, we can't be trusted... --David Tornheim (talk) 04:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Above we have a good expression of Guy's McCarthyism. The belief that you known what's correct about everything, and others can't be trusted. That we need the benevolent dictator, or otherwise we'll be drowning in bad content. That we need good hearted bullies to maintain the content. I say no. We have policies and we have editors who understand the policies. We represent reliable sources correctly, and voila, we have good content. We don't need philosopher kings. We need fair application of policy. Guy's approach sounds superficially convincing, but it's deeply flawed and harmful. In other words, we don't need to be protected from the Communists. We much moreso need to be protected from those who say they're protecting us from Communists. We are community with principles and policy that will suffice, and I certainly support any means to getting better peer review of edits and avoiding canvassing, rigging, and gang-based POV enforcement. SageRad (talk) 14:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Where did I say I know what's best? The issue is as I stated. Consider an analogy: state leigslatures may pass laws banning gay marriage, but the Supreme Court, which has no jury, has ruled that this is unconstitutional. So if you are going to have juries to rule on content, you'd have to have an overarching system which examines whether the decision of the jury is actually in line with policy. You can't qualify the jury by credentials, because (a) credentialled editors are every bit as susceptible to bias as lay editors - hence Citizendium nuking a big chunk of its expert-generated content a while back, because the experts in question turned out to be fringe POV-pushers rebuffed from Wikipedia - and (b) lay editing is a foundational principle.

The accusation of McCarthyism is hyperbolic and frankly irrelevant. Wikipedia is, by its very nature, inclusive. A few people get sanctioned or banned, but only a few, and mainly in areas where there is a well-documented real-world collision between fact and ideology (climate change, creationism, homeopathy, psychic phenomena and the like). Wikipedia is a reality-based project. If it ever ceases to be a reality-based project, it will lose its credibility and it won't be Wikipedia any more. If Wikipedia said that reiki works, rather than it being so obviously nonsense that a nine-year-old student could devise a test that shows it doesn't work, then we would have failed. Being neutral and accurate does not mean giving parity to belief and empirical fact. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

JzG/Guy: Your claim that "only a few" people get banned is a bit disingenuous. At the GMO ArbCom Case, a single editor Tryptofish proposed having 7 editors site-banned [9], including me, SageRad, DrChrissy who have spoken here, Prokaryotes (whose successful topic-ban you later supported, resulting in a voluntary 6-month site ban.) You did not oppose any of the 7 proposals for site bans, and indeed spoke up in support of the proposed site ban of Petrarchan47. To say site bans are uncommon is not consistent with your willingness to let 7 of them move forward in just that single proceeding. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:33, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

• Ruthless decisions and deletions are rampant: Evidentally many users are unaware of the ruthless decisions being made. Now non-admin closures of XfD discussions are commonplace, concluding clear "consensus" to delete templates or pages used for years, just waiting for an admin to delete the pages not wanted by non-admin decisions. The deletions have been horrific; just look at TfD of Template:Convert/flip2, which deleted 3 complex templates in use for 5 years, based on 1 "Delete" !vote while another user urged to save those templates for use on other MediaWiki websites not using Lua script versions of templates. What some people do is to systematically remove valuable templates, from hundreds or thousands of pages, then claim, "template unused" as justification to delete a page used for years to provide data not possible in any equivalent way. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It is actually quite easy to generate random numbers from the noise in webcam pictures. Let the webcam take a few pictures of a static scene, convert the images to 32 bit floating point images, normalize the pictures to the same brightness, take the average and then subtract one of the pictures from the average. If you map negative pixels values to 0 and positive pixel values to 1, you almost have perfectly random bits, that are uncorrelated when the pixels are not too close. Applying von Neumann's algorithm to pairs of bits taken from distant pixels:

(0,1) ---> 0

(1,0)---> 1

while (0,0) and (1,1) are discarded, will yield perfect random bits with 0 and 1 having exactly 50% probability. Count Iblis (talk) 22:49, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps have a quorum of noninvolved users

It might seem great to poll only 3rd-party, non-involved users, but that seems unrealistic because the basis of the not-vote (!vote) strategy is to debate on merits of issues, rather than sheer numbers, and the involved users typically know those details well; however, too often the count of Oppose vs. Support is used to determine consensus, and hence a minimum count of non-involved users could be set, as an outsider quorum, to ensure enough outside 3rd-party opinions to deter an insiders-only majority rule. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that a quorum of non-involved editors' decisions should carry the weight. And their discussion should be separated from the involved parties--like at ArbCom. They can listen to involved parties comments as witnesses and say they agree with Witness X's comments, etc., ask questions of witnesses/parties, and anyone else who feels like showing up, etc. Their decisions can be based on the old consensus model, but the self-selected parties and witnesses do not get an !vote in that.

I'm not sure what is to be done if the 3rd party uninvolved can't seem to agree. Like a real jury, they could be required to come up with something that all or at least, say 2/3rd of them can live with before they are released from duty.

I think it essential that the 3rd party non-involved are selected randomly from editor space. Editors may claim not to be involved, and just show up. But they may have an interest, or a strong opinion on the subject matter, even if they have never edited the talk page or article space before. In fact, the editors who show up could have had their accounts created specifically for that purpose--to be able to show up on key decisions and to be able to claim neutrality, since they have up until then spent all their editing time on other subjects. I read a disturbing Wikipediocracy article that described such methods a group of COI editors could use to hijack a particular Wikipedia article(s) which sadly could easily be in place right now and very hard to detect or prove, even if suspected. The random jury selection process would make the methods described in that article ineffective. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Jury tool as part of user-decision toolset

In terms of WMF budget allocations, I would recommend a 2-year minimum to develop a broader toolset with the "random-jury selection tool" plus some related tools, as a broader toolset, to help assure the wp:developers a longer-term employment, in case of fears of project cancellation would deter programmers from sticking with the user-decision tools project. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

What if you gave a trial and nobody came?

I think the proposal is well meant but impractical. For example, in the U.S. if you're selected for jury duty you have to serve under pain of legal sanction including fine or imprisonment, while Wikipedia has no such powers of compulsion. On the other hand there's much to be said for giving more weight to those who haven't previously been involved in the matter at hand -- or at the very least, giving them space to be heard above the din of partisan sniping. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:27, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Simple, make it mandatory if you want to continue editing (as I described above under "participation"). How many people you know who went to jail or were fined for not attending jury duty?  :) Jury duty is only required if you want to vote. --David Tornheim (talk) 02:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I've known people who were fined (though not jailed) for blowing off jury duty. The link between voting and jury duty is a misconception that holds over from the days when jury lists were taken from voter registration rolls. Nowadays the jury pool is often supplemented with other lists, such as licensed drivers.

As for the possibility that one could be blocked for not serving on the Wiki-jury, this has so many potential undesirable outcomes that the chance of it being accepted is zero to negative.

Outside-the-box thinking is good, but this idea just isn't going to fly. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:38, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any evidence for "so many potential undesirable outcomes" resulting from mandatory jury duty, any more than we have in real life. It's simply a civic responsibility to create a fair system of justice by a jury of one's peers who are neutral rather than having the disputes boil over to different forums with all the same self-selected editors continuing to dominate the discussion/decision. As it is, admins. have wide latitude to block or ban editors for anything they consider to be a behavioral issue if a POV gang has it in for that editor; likewise, admins. have wide latitude to do nothing, when, in fact, action is needed. I have seen admins. say they were "afraid" to take a stand. I have seen countless double-standards, even lying tolerated, but with no venue to address the problem. I really believe having juries would address some of these most serious problems that demoralize editors.

Failure to participate with jury duty could be enforced by a bot. Although editors might try to trick the bot with bogus edits to "prove" participation, the other jurors who took it seriously would complain. I don't see much potential for abuse even close to what we already have. --David Tornheim (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I very much wish that this could work. I would be relieved to see some way to get truly random and not self-selected participation in reviewing contested issues about content. I've participated in many RfC call from Legobot out of a sense of duty, the same sense that would compel me to go to jury duty. However, i have seen too many RfC's gamed by the same few editors with a point of view to push. I've seen them canvassed for votes, and don't trust the RfC process anymore. I've seen the same things that David Tornheim writes about: editors blatantly lying, distorting things in strawman arguments, misrepresenting sources on talk pages, derailing through fallacious arguments intentionally, filibustering, etc.... the whole gamut of "Civil POV Railroading" techniques, and many times not so civil -- and nothing ever done to remedy it through AN/I or any other process. In other words, an ecology where a few editors with an axe to grind can take over articles and force a POV to be represented as reality, in Wikivoice. I've seen this ugly process too much here. I've pretty much given up on actually editing anywhere if a few bully editors show up, because i know it's their way or the highway, and they'll stop at nothing, whatever the reliable sources may say, whatever reason may say, until they get their way. They have an agenda and they force it upon Wikipedia nonstop. Wikipedia has a serious infection of establishment trolls. Do not reply and say that i am promoting "pseudoscience' or "woo" or whatever. I am not. It's political. It's not about science versus pseudoscience. It's about forcing one version of selective representation of science into many articles. SageRad (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

You are promoting pseudoscience and woo. Pseudoscience-pushers have always said exactly the same things you are saying ("it's conspiracy and corrupt politics"), they do now, and they always will. However, this phrase, "establishment troll" is a new one for me. It is great, in its bizareness! And it could not make your stance outside the mainstream more clear. Jytdog (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

No i am not promoting "pseudoscience" and "woo", and stop the god damn personal attacks, man. There are dynamics going on, some of which serve establishment ends. That's observable. There are indeed real conspiracies in the world, too -- there are warranted conspiracy theories and unwarranted one. The idea of "the mainstream" is a term of control, and conformity to "the mainstream" is used to promote ideological conformity. That is not what Wikipedia is about. It's about getting things right. If there is a solid source that says a certain chemical causes a certain harm in humans or in animals, with due weight, then it belongs in an article about that chemical. Those who push it out of the article do seem to be "establishment trolls" when they do that systematically and round-the-clock as if their life depended on it. Stop your vile personal attacks and speak with integrity, Jytdog. SageRad (talk) 13:15, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

I support what SageRad says. There is a group of "establishment trolls" who have a strong POV and impose their POV on Wikipedia. Any opposition to their POV is labelled "pseudoscience" and any references which do not support their POV are labelled "unreliable". The result is that Wikipedia is heavily biassed in one direction and is losing credibility. Biscuittin (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

SageRad, you keep talking about "integrity" and this is basically the same thing you have done since your very first day here. Instead of taking the time to figure out how we do things, you have come in like a battering ram with your own ideas about how to edit, and you are making yourself miserable. Wikipedia's policies and guidelines have a boatload of integrity - a deep coherence. They are a solid thing that is not going to yield to you. It's not me. Your unhappiness is of your own making. Jytdog (talk) 23:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I've always recognized that our jury duty would need to be voluntary. I don't think this is a problem for us though, because think about the choices: with IRL jury duty, you go sit in a room and probably not get called, or go to work and get paid. With Wikipedia jury duty, we could assign you straight to a case that might interest you, and the alternative is doing other volunteer work on the site. Additionally, of course, we can simply notify more people - with (in)justice systems, people may worry about self-selection if you did that, but here, we'd be moving from an entirely self-selected system to one less so, and that's still progress. Wnt (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Like I've suggested this a couple times. I did this: I used a jury of three for my second RfA, and it worked great -- 2-1 decision. Granted the jurors were picked by me, but I picked two of the essentially at random. Worked out great, and I always hoped it'd be a test case. Can we test this? Let's pick a not-terribly-important RfC or two and try it?

As to random numbers, back in the day of play-by-mail games (and I mean play by mail, we didn't have email yet) we'd write "Alcoa, shares traded, July 17" (July 17 being in the future, and "last digit" being assumed) to give the equivalent of a ten-sided-die roll (also works for even/odd). This gives a common number than anyone can check (due to an oddity of statistics, it actually only works with numbers not generated by human activity -- temperature (last digit) would do.) Herostratus (talk) 17:59, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support Fantastic idea. I think something along the lines of Legobot that picks random editors for RFC's would work. I also think that Admins should be included, and perhaps a separate pool with random admins chosen to close noticeboard sections on AN, AN/I, and AE would be a good thing when dealing with behavior issues. AlbinoFerret 21:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I don't think this is a practical idea and I think it is problematic make demands of volunteers who freely giving their time and attention to work on areas of the project that they find rewarding. Pulling them away from improving articles or fighting vandalism and insisting they serve on a jury if their number comes up will likely find some editors simply disappearing from Wikipedia for a few weeks or months. Since I think that the very active editor pool on Wikipedia is around 3500 individuals, I think you are overestimating the number of editors who regularly edit and would want to participate in this process.

But that's just my opinion. As in all major changes on Wikipedia, try an RfC rather than a talk page discussion and see what kind of support this has. In general, editors don't like major changes but the RfC on RfA reform succeeded and maybe this one would too. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Comment A very interesting idea. Being selected as a jury member should not be related to number of edits. My own style of editing is multiple, brief edits, meaning I have a high frequency. I would not really like to think this makes me more likely to be selected, although I would be willing to complete my community service. If editors were to avoid jury service, perhaps a sanction that makes editing problematic e.g. 3 edits/day until engagement in jury service, rather than an outright block might be an encouragement. Randomly-selected jury service for matters of behaviour is fine - we should all know what is appropriate behaviour on here and what is not. Matters of content is slightly different. What if editors were requested to state their areas of interest (limited to, e.g. 5) - many of us already do this on our user page - and the jury members were selected from this group of knowledgeable (expert?) editors?DrChrissy ^(talk) 22:56, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the brainstorming! Yes, reduced editing fuctionality might be better than a complete block. I think reduced function would be preferable to some of the black/white punishments we have for other issues as well. It could also be used like plea bargain. --David Tornheim (talk) 23:52, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Drawing people from the pool of those who identify as interested in a subject is the exact opposite of what this proposal is trying to achieve. You would pretty much guarantee that the "jury" would be comprised of partisans. I am sure many of those topic-banned in the GMO arbitration case consider themselves experts, or at least knowledgeable and interested, but it turned out that the more "expert" they were, the more they were pushing a POV. Hence bans for partisans in both camps. Imagine trying to adjudicate on the validity of claims in an article on a subject rife with pseudoscience - acupuncture, homeopathy, whatever - with a jury of people who self-identify as experts in that field. You'd end up with the situation they had at Citizendium, where they had to nuke great swathes of citable articles because they had been hijacked by "experts" like Dana Ullman. Guy (Help!) 23:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

It would actually depend on the size of the pool. If the pool is big enough, the selection would be random (within the confines of the subject matter) and this would prevent the sharks in the pool from chomping on the others to POV, or playing tag with other sharks. That is why I suggested a limited number of categories - so that editors would have to think about where they wanted to have influence and this would be limited.DrChrissy ^(talk) 23:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

The idea of users selecting categories is interesting. I agree with JzG that allowing self-professed experts to limit categories of jury participation might allow continued advocacy in that topic area. In particular, when it comes to health articles, we have an embarrassing problem with the influence of "sketpic" partisan activists promoting Skeptic magazine and Quackwatch through their Wikipedia editing as a way of proselytizing and recruiting to their their radical ideology regarding science and "truth" as witnessed by this video of Susan Gerbic. A skeptic I met in real life had a poor understanding of science and very little training. Science was more like some "fad diet", that the person had jumped on and thought would save the world. I notice that many skeptics are people who turned away from Christianity [10], [11], [12], [13] from one dogma to another, using all the same methods of promoting the dogma.

But I also think it would be unfair to force someone to participate in something they really feel they have no knowledge of the RS that may be fairly complicated and have no interest in learning it. That's why I would propose that editors be permitted to opt-out of certain discussions if they feel they are not up to it, rather than the other way around. I would rather users be randomly pushed into topics that are new, but interesting to them rather than having a big say in choosing the topic to participate in.

That said, I have close family members who are professors in science, and if they ever were to edit, they might prefer their entire editing experience was only related to science and/or their area of true expertise. I'm not sure that would be an unreasonable thing to ask, and hence, asking to have their jury service restricted to science (or other subject they feel somewhat knowledgeable on the RS) does not seem entirely crazy. So I'm a bit on the fence with your idea on self-selecting categories. Keep in mind that establishing a category will require the person requesting a jury to chose one, and there could be a big disagreement about what category the dispute fit into best. --David Tornheim (talk) 01:08, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It is a mistake to characterise skeptics as "partisans" in this way: skepticism is the default in the scientific method, and it is skeptics who have led the way in exposing the fraudulent nature of homeopathy, the lack of credible evidence for acupuncture, the entirely bogus claims of reiki and other "energy medicine" modalities, the fatalities caused by chiropractic manipulation of the neck (a procedure with no demonstrable benefit to offset the risk), the activities of anti-vaccination activists and so on. Skeptics played a prominent role in Kitzmiller, too. Skeptics have exposed the reality behind several paranormal claims, and exposed fraudulent claims around bigfoot and other cryptids, including tracing the origin of the chupacabra.

You seem to think that all skeptics are like the newbies Susan Gerbic trains. That's not true. My skeptic friends in real life include several professors, many medical doctors, a ton of PhDs - I am ofetn well outclassed with my humble BEng. Sure, soe skeptics are clueless. But most aren't. The thought leaders of the movement included people like Martin Gardner, Carl Sagan, Robert L. Park and others. Oh, and of course Randi, who, as a stage conjurer, is very adept at spotting sleight of hand, so nailed Peter Popoff and Uri Geller to name but two out of many frauds and charlatans he has exposed.

Skeptics are basically just science advocates. Read Voodoo science some time. Sometimes science says things that people don't want to hear (the earth is warming, GMOs are safe, vaccines are safe and effective and so on). Wikipedia does not work like the news media and sees no need to give parity of esteem to science and nonsense. This is, as far as I can tell, a feature, not a bug, and any attempt to change it through the back door, by allowing votes to override policy-based arguments, would degrade the project. Guy (Help!) 23:38, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Regarding juries, I'm not sure why you keep talking about majority. Juries often require unanimous verdicts [14]. If you have not seen the famous movie 12_Angry_Men_(1957_film), it would be well worth a view. It makes a strong case for why it might be okay to allow one juror to block a questionable decision of the other 11. My guess is that if juries are implemented, they would continue to follow the long established Wiki-consensus rules/principles, but I assume that the consensus would be of just the jurors rather than including those in the dispute--just as is done in the courts. I would prefer a super-majority or close to unanimity, but I would probably not want a single defiant juror the ability to stonewall the decision.

Thank you for the long explanation of your thoughts on Skeptics. If you got a BEng, then I'll bet you had to take some liberal arts classes and some in the humanities. Most engineers in my program (and that I have known since) hated liberal arts classes, thinking the courses were too "touchy-feely", too mooshy. They strongly preferred math, science, logic and other left brain thinking which they saw as grounded in verifiable "fact", formula and rules of nature, and did not see much need or value for the other wishy-washy foolishness. But if you take a little philosophy (especially regarding Epistemology), the solidity of science in finding all "truth" is not all that it is made out to be by science advocates who hold it on a pedestal. Empiricism has always had its limits pointed out by Plato in his Allegory of the Cave [15], David Hume in An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, Descartes' Meditations on First Philosophy and Immanuel Kant's novel metaphysics and the unknowability of the thing-in-itself. Science may be great for designing motors and predicting the movement of planets, understanding DNA, evolution, measuring and predicting temperatures, understanding many things about living beings, etc., especially the concerns that come up with pure materialism. But if you want to understand abstract concepts, history, the nature of morality and beauty, culture, good writing, power, etc., science and its reliance on the scientific method and use of induction have limits in explaining power and experts in many academic fields would wisely not rely solely on science for all "truth". And those were many of the well established fields the engineers who loved science tried to avoid. Imagine an architecture class based solely on science. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

David I am a humanities and a science person and the way you are mixing up po-mo and science is garbage that will never get traction in WP. Jytdog (talk) 05:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You sure had me fooled by your edit history that is only about pharma, medicine, science, chemicals, etc. Of the many posts of yours I have seen in different venues, never once have I seen even the slightest interest in humanities, philosophy or epistemology. You might take a look at our article space just mentioned here. Science is just a wee percentage of the articles we have. It's funny how you brought up Postmodernism. All of the well respected philosophers I mentioned died centuries before the concept came into being. After all, science is just a branch of philosophy (see Natural philosophy) with a fairly recent and dramatic rise in interest during and since the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution (History_of_science). --David Tornheim (talk) 13:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

You think my edit history reflects who i am in the rw? kooky. all you were doing in your post was rehashing the by-now-very-dull moves that people who apply po-mo to science go through. it is sloppy and boring. science is about kicking rocks , as best as we flawed humans can do that. Jytdog (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps contact 200 users to get 50 respondents

As Jimbo noted above, contacting 50 users for jury dury would likely not get 50 replies, and we would not know all of their editing-habits. So by wikimailing to 200 users then perhaps 50 would reply in time to debate the issues. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we are talking about trying to obtain 50 jurors, unless the decision was of grand importance, perhaps even more significant than an ArbCom proceeding. My thought on juries is 12 or fewer jurors, perhaps as few as 4 or 5 for ordinary decisions. There could be a provision that if one or both sides of the dispute request it (or the number of parties in the dispute is high enough), then a larger jury would be seated prior to the beginning of action. But more than 12 starts to seem unmanageable, especially if the goal is for a close to unanimous result.

I am thinking about ordinary things I see on noticeboards where there is a heated dispute about something that to others who don't edit in the topic area might see as relatively minor, but for those in the dispute may be heavily invested and ready to argue ad nauseum. Neutral 3rd parties are unlikely to participate in these posts, because it is too complicated and they don't want to get dragged into the drama, perhaps afraid of alienating one or both sides, especially if they see it as no big deal. And that basically keeps the fire burning, rather than creating an appropriate compromise that might be reasonably satisfying to both sides--something the parties themselves may be incapable of creating on their own. I don't think these little (and common) flair-ups should require a large jury.

Are you thinking it might be more like a single grand jury that listens to multiple disputes? I think it would take a very high level of commitment--like that of ArbCom--to be on a grand jury. I personally think it would be more like a specific jury for each action. I am going to make a separate post of any idea I have. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:24, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Rather than near-unanimous, I suspect most decisions to hover at 55%-45% while allowing the interested parties to !vote (as a compromise to get jury selection allowed). Meanwhile, a complete transformation towards a system of "due process" with independent, objective juries could be a long-term goal. Remember when we discussed the 1-year term limits for admins, as adopted in Swedish WP since 2006, there was some extreme resistance to the idea, with wild claims that no one would ever want to be an enwiki admin to renew every year. Reforms need to be gradual here, such as opening debates to include 50 outsider opinions but not deny interested parties their partial power to reply throughout all the various !votes. Remember people will be giving up their former power where 3 people have decided to delete pages used by 100 editors for years. -Wikid77 (talk) 16:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Idea: Standing Juries

Perhaps we could have a SET of standing juries (perhaps 10 or more of these). Each standing jury would initially be staffed by a random selection of jurors who have been called for service and have also agreed to participate for the time period in question. When a jury is needed, one of these juries is selected randomly to hear the dispute. This has the advantage that the jurors would get to know each other and might find some common rules they like to operate with. And they would be available at all times to act quickly, rather than trying to assemble a bunch of strangers who do not know how to work together, as is the case in juries in courts.

Term: Editors would serve for some specific amount of time on the jury they have been assigned with. Terms would be staggered for continuity (such as 1 week or 1 month terms). Jurors could stay longer if they want (perhaps some maximum # of terms), which would create some stability and experience in that jury. Once a juror leaves, a new eligible (and willing juror) would be randomly selected to replace them.

Removal: By unanimous vote of the other jurors, anyone could be kicked off of the jury for future proceedings for that jury if they are too disruptive.

Size: I see some interesting options for size of the individual standing juries:

• Small: 4-12 members: Ordinary disputes. Entire jury always participates, except for COI jurors.
• Medium: 20 members: With this variation, not every member would be required to participate in every decision. This would be quite helpful if a juror needs to be off-Wiki for a few days. COI editors would need to opt-out. Jurors might be permitted to opt-out voluntarily for matters they feel unqualified for.
• Large: 50 members: Jurors could be to assigned to a set of subject-matter specific committees based on expertise and interest. When that standing jury is called, the appropriate committee would serve as the jury for any proceeding involving that subject matter--somewhat like how it is done in Washington D.C. in Congress and other governments. However, there is a good chance this would duplicate all the same problems we already have if the jurors are self-selecting their subject matter interest. It would also require a huge pool of jurors and overhead, and so is also impractical when combined with the idea of multiple standing juries. Nonetheless, since this is how elected governments work, some element of the committee idea might be useful with respect to juries.

--David Tornheim (talk) 09:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

How does the Feedback Request Service not already serve these purposes?

Doesn't the Wikipedia:Feedback request service already serve as a jury pool with random selection? Where, for the purposes described above, does it fall short? EllenCT (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, it would be nice to have 50 new, random jurors, rather than the same wp:FRS "13" users for all of Mathematics, but perhaps a spin-off plan could be to expand the membership beyond the current FRS service usernames. I guess the RfC track is the best option now, as "To the victor belongs the bureaucracy" and there is no viable substitute to escalating the key issues into wp:RfC debates. We tried that RfC route for the wp:CS1 cite templates to stop those red-error messages, but I guess several more RfCs will be needed to explain "No means No" for those rampant cite error messages in thousands of pages. -Wikid77 (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• As we said above, editors self-select. Those who are involved make walls-of-text and distractions making it a huge burden for anyone not involved to know what is going on and to effectively keep them from participating (or wanting to). The involved parties and those who have strong similar feelings (e.g. admins that have similar strong feelings) dominate the discussion and will try to get editors banned if anyone disagrees with them, even when they are wrong. A jury that has authority to make the decision rather than the involved parties, would change the dynamic entirely if they were not punished for participating. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That is a crucial point, and would explain why pages about a technical subject would become increasingly jargonized despite related RfCs which should have triggered broader, mainstream wording, but instead the issues were decided by the same self-selected people, who effectively closed ranks on the evermore restrictive text within that subject area. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps someone more technical than I can explain what is going on at https://github.com/legoktm/harej-bots/blob/master/frsbot.php#L54 but the FRS/Legobot task 33 apparently uses round-robin selection instead of random selection? EllenCT (talk) 16:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I also did not see any actual use of random selection to retrieve usernames by SQL (just use of name with prefix "random"), while the main processing seemed to center on checking the per-month limit of each user to be notified by the frsbot, within 30 days and 60x60x24 seconds per day: 86400. -Wikid77 (talk) 13:24, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Does position on the FRS sign-up page's topic sections influence how many requests are made? @Harej: @Legoktm: do you know? EllenCT (talk) 03:34, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The frsbot.php seems to cycle through all users every time (as retrieved via "frs_userid" and "frs_username"), and hence, the position in the list would not seem to matter. I had forgotten how uncommented source code is almost as difficult to read the nth time as it is the 1st time. Many of our Lua script modules are much worse (and much longer), with line length 230 characters[!!!] and very few meaningful comments. We badly need "Coding Standards for Dummies" to encourage use of the most powerful tool in any programming language (the source code comment) and please please do not name identifiers as "temp02" because ALL are temporary. -Wikid77 (talk) 11:29, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the second part of your first sentence follows from the first. EllenCT (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Fauna of Delaware

Can you add a fauna of Delaware page to wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.12.38 (talk) 02:58, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no "List of animals in Delaware" but we have "List of Superfund sites in Delaware" where many animals are probably dying. -Wikid77 (talk) 06:24, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of a "jury" of editors ...

Might the WMF furnish research funds to (say) Columbia School of Journalism for studies on how well or poorly Wikipedia handles controversial news and biographical topics with regard to the stated policies of Wikipedia, and with regard to proper uses of journalistic writing standards, and to other groups for studying specific categories of articles which may or may not have problems (Medical articles, for example, might be a study for a JAMA grant, NatGeo might be able to vet how we handle articles on geographical topics, and why not get OUP to actually study Wikipedia, etc.). The aim would be to gain critical perspectives on the successes and failures of the current systems, and might also furnish insight into what WMF might wish to accent for the rapidly ascendant "mainly mobile user" contingent. (I am pretty certain the results will suggest that some of the more rambling articles be cut down <g>). Collect (talk) 19:40, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

It sounds good to me, but of course there would be some difficulties. For example, if we went to CSJ and said please study how well Wikipedia's journalism works and print it in the Columbia Journalism Review, they'd almost certainly say that their coverage can't be bought. We'd almost have to just give them the money (starting at $50-100k), say give us a freely licensed copy and then do whatever you want with it. BTW, you won't be eligible to do this again for say 30 years, but we may do it again at places like Medill School of Journalism or at one of the Annenberg Schools. Probably the best way would be to put out a call for proposals, to be judged by a third-party. I don't think I'd ask National Geographic to judge our geography articles and I'd even have 2nd thoughts about asking the AMA to judge our medical articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:21, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

The WMF could not "demand publication" for sure - but the funding of actual research without strings otherwise is precisely the correct procedure. And the examples I gave were not intended to specify which places would have to be used, only as examples of the types of organizations which would likely give up the most impartial results. And I would trust that such impartial studies would show both the good and bad results of the current system. I think your cost estimate is low if we want any truly comprehensive studies - probably $300K per study would be nearer the mark to at least pay for 3 person-years to do any research of value, and more likely $600K per study to get significant value. I shudder at how much the WMF paid for the recent "survey" with results compiled by mechanical collating of statistics and not by actual consideration of the views of the participants. Collect (talk) 23:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

If its not broke, don't fix it, and if you want something done right, do it yourself. I think we're looking for trouble by asking for any sort of professional analysis. All of our issues have to do with execution, nothing to do with structure. Even the jury of editors is an obviously bad idea, imo, simply because it is complicated, i.e.KISS principle, and naive in its expectations of the capabilities of a random selection from today's general population (even of our editors). I think a lot of us. like me, just need to do more editing and less chatting and perhaps, I can't say, the admins can execute better and with more time efficiency? If there is an absolute need to make some big structural changes, so be it, but if so, I think we should do all the work internally. Nocturnalnow (talk) 03:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If, as you say, there is nothing wrong, then a study would confirm that claim. On the other hand, if something is wrong, then declining to seek that information out would be silly. As for "do(ing) all the work internally" - that would be fine if WMF has a group of trained journalists in-house to do the analysis - but I am fairly confident that such a group is not currently on staff within the WMF. I would love to be proven wrong on that hypothesis, of course. Collect (talk) 03:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

KISS principle at Wikipedia? LOL. Understanding WP:PAG the essays that go with it, almost requires a degree. Simply trying to make a proper response on the talk page of an article or one's own talk page (or doing a ping correctly) without ever having been exposed to HTML is quite an undertaking for a novice. A jury would not be that hard to implement in comparison. That said, perhaps brand new users probably should not be on juries, confessing total lack of experience would be a good excuse to get out of duty. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:30, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

You've changed my mind Collect. It's a great idea and now I see your point; now that I think about it, once again it is the process which has to be gotten right. For example, I do not accept the premise that the majority of today's trained journalists or journalists in training or professors are very good or have anything to contribute and I absolutely do not give any automatic importance or credibility to any opinions they may have. Even the older trained journalists seem to have fallen into ego and/or partisan driven activities and thought processes. Just check out some of Carl Bernstein's recent conversations and analysis, likely there are many on youtube. So, I suggest that, with processing your idea, the first step is to try to identify one or more people who have already graduated and are working as trained journalists, whom the community, or at least the editors here, agree we could look to for constructive analysis. Then, once we identify them, then those exact people are the ones we should ask to have a look at our product. This is just my opinion, of course, and I absolutely see now that if we can identify such people, which we probably can, that their opinions would absolutely be worthwhile for us to have. I also am optimistic that such people would be happy and even proud that we had come to them for such help. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I have decided that my overall inexperience with and knowledge about everything to do with wiki, as well as my impulsiveness with expressing undeveloped opinions, make my opinions, especially initial opinions, in matters such as this of little use. So, please ignore my comments above and I plan to stick to editing articles and off Jimbo's talk page unless I have something to add that I am very confident will be of use and that I have thought through. I'm making this change because I often see things more clearly when I first wake up, and this AM I realized that both the random jury and the journalistic school ideas have tremendous merit. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:39, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Sausage Fest and Robot Chicken Shit

How does an article about a Sausage fest (gathering) get redirected to some Robot Chicken Shit? What does that have to do with a gathering or the other widely known meaning of a Sausage fest. I will admit the term isn't up to mentioning among the Church Lady but at least she has her own page. There are plenty of sausage festivals held around the country with ample source material so why do the wieners get recognition while the sausage festivals do not? Does the term make some males feel insecure or uncomfortable? Well at least attend a sausage fest before you knock them. Some also do not like that good O'l Wikipedia has been referred to as a Sausage Fest. Well it is and nearly everyone here knows it. Embrace the truth, do something about if you must but do not deny the reality. 172.56.13.253 (talk) 06:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tx for the entertainment value of your contribution. In the recent edit-warring at the (currently page-protected) redirect you mention there was some mentioning of block evasion here – Can you enlighten us as to what might be meant by that? --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:34, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

@Francis Schonken: The user appears to be obsessed with sausage as a metaphor for maleness; accuses those who revert him of vandalism, incivility, sock-puppetry, censorship, wiki-lawyering, or male insecurity; and has recently ventured into "pointy" editing and user-space trolling (this section on my talk page; this section on his talk page copied from my sandbox).

This is my list so far of his IPs (and sole account):

• Kurdish Keith (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.12.251 (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.13.10 (talk · contribs)
• 172.56.13.253 (talk · contribs)
• 172.58.137.140 (talk · contribs)
• 172.58.152.204 (talk · contribs)
• 2607:FB90:288:BCB5:0:19:C09B:CE01 (talk · contribs)

 Rebbing  talk  14:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Tx for clearing that up, I mean, that they are a he, I was starting to suspect a severe case of sausage envy, in which case Wikipedia would cause an irresistible attraction, since its founder declared "[Wikipedia is] like a sausage"! --Francis Schonken (talk) 15:29, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 02 March 2016

• News and notes: Tretikov resigns, WMF in transition

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Traffic report: Brawling

• Recent research: Wikipedia and paid labour; Swedish gender gap; how verifiable is "verifiable"?

• Blog: Wikimedia Foundation details requests to alter or remove content in new transparency report

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm...the presidential campaigns have lit up WP

Case in point: Donald Trump (Last_Week_Tonight). For some reason, I thought WP:Recentism would have trumped it not being a standalone article, not to mention WP:SOAPBOX and the polemic implications of a single episode created as standalone article which brings in WP:Content forking. Also, per GNG#When to create standalone pages, see the examples provided which suggest that it belongs in Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign,_2016 not as a standalone. The same would apply to similar standalone articles if they exist for Rubio, Cruz, Clinton and Sanders, etc. with regards to their current presidential campaigns. We're opening the doors to having forks everywhere - all recentism originating from TV episodes, news and skits from the likes of NBC, CBS, ABC, FOX News commentators such The O'Reilly Factor, a 60 Minutes episode, a Chris Matthews report, a single Saturday Night Live parody and so forth. Yikes. It opens our doors wide to political advocacies and I find that extremely disconcerting. Atsme^📞📧 19:26, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A good discussion to have. I don't really have a strong view on this one.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:19, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard

• Also nominated: User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Shave the Wales and User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians for Jimbo's beard

User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User:Jimbo Wales/WikiProject Wikipedians who frankly don't care about Jimbo's beard during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 13:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

That's right. @Jimbo Wales: do you want this page deleted? It seems to me that the choice is really yours. Coretheapple (talk) 14:18, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

For deletion discussions involving user pages, Twinkle informs both the creator of the page and the editor whose user page it is. This was an automatic notification. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 10:51, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

@Liz: I made a point of pinging Jimbo to ask his opinion, and I see that he didn't respond to my ping but did post elsewhere on this page. Reading-the-Jimbo-nonresponse-tea-leaves®, that says to me that he doesn't care. It's probably too late to withdraw this MfD but a good lesson for the future, not to waste time policing his subpages/pages. Coretheapple (talk) 13:48, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What is a "legal" threat?

@Jimbo_Wales, if I feel that there might be some sort of bias, whether true or not, and then for whatever reason some bans/blocks and what nots happen and then I say "I will contact the ADL" and I get banned. Is that correct? Are we really now banning editors for sharing that they feel a perception of something a bit off? You can see my talk page for a sampling of 90% of the editors disagreeing with the blocking admin's views. I hope you can see that the chilling effect is the opposite. You are silencing me from sharing my opinion. I have already been silenced because I was told that I couldn't share my opinion at AE/ARBCOM because they found it troubling that I shared my opinion and since I shared my opinion (and I have to be vague) they were going to extend my block. But why is it that gender bias is allowed to be discussed out in the open and just the contrary, if you deny the gender bias, that is not allowed? I don't want to make waves, but it is 2016 and things do need to be discussed out in the open and people should not be getting banned for sharing what they are feeling. And I hope someone watches my page because I really hope I don't get banned for this comment. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 05:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be useful if you provided links to the various discussions about this. In general, I find that people concerned about having been blocked tend, on average, to present their case in a rather one-sided fashion. But given that caveat, I would say that "I will contact the ADL" is not a legal threat, but it is a completely unhelpful comment in what should be a civil discussion about potential bias in an article, and would be one factor to consider in asking ourselves whether someone should be blocked or not. We are here to write an encyclopedia, not to engage in flame wars. While I agree that in most cases people "should not be getting banned for sharing what they are feeling" that remark sort of misses the point - we should be discussing sources and how to improve articles, not our own personal opinions or feelings about broad contemporary social topics.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:23, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• The blocking started after this comment (which BTW also contained a rather frivolous Argumentum ad Jimbonem)
• 24H block → discussion → then this
• indef block → discussion → removal of inopportune material (that is: inopportune material regarding second block; the inopportune material leading to the original 24H block hasn't been touched yet afaik)
• Block restored to original 24H → further discussion primarily at User talk:Sir Joseph#March 2016 and Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Amendment request: American politics (that last one having started before the blocking began). --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Regarding the first comment (that led to the 24H block) I'd like to add here that it seems to me there is still some misapprehension in the wider editor community how Jimbo and Bishonen get along nowadays. If I'm erring about that, maybe time to start clearing the sky. No reason to be heavy-handed about that, just follow official protocol. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

perhaps just look at the Bernie Sanders talk page. I don't want to say more because that might violate my topic ban.Sir Joseph ^(talk) 12:10, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Sir Joseph, it would seem to me that you did violate your 6-month AE enforced and supported topic ban by referring someone to the Bernie Sanders article talk page as well as mentioning Bernie Sanders. Coffee, any thoughts on this? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:22, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Would you like a shovel? And please stop WP:HOUNDING me. Your constant need to see me banned is extremely disgusting. Jimmy asked for clarification. How the Hell am I supposed to clarify what I am perceiving? There must be a reason why I am contacting the ADL. Now you guys know. WV, you seriously need to stop following me around and you need to stop harassing me and trying to get me banned. It is not conduct that Wikipedia needs. Your userpage has a little blurb about sharks, yet you are acting like one. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 15:28, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I have this page on my watchlist. No one is hounding you, no one is harassing you. I have no shovel, no need for one, and am not digging the hole you are suggesting as I am not under a formal topic ban -- you, however, are. I have no desire to see you banned or blocked, just to see you finally and willingly abide by the sanction you are under and stop complaining about it. You do seem to need to have the limits of your current topic ban pointed out to you frequently as you keep pushing the boundaries of it. Several administrators at AE already decided that a 6-month t-ban was appropriate for you considering all the circumstances. Considering such, I see it highly unlikely that your threats of going to the ADL and whining about the t-ban is going to change anything. It will, no doubt, sour many editors against you if you continue on the course you are relentlessly pursuing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 15:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

If you have no desire to have me banned, then you would not have the need to mention the fact that I dared mentioned those two horrid words on this talk page. Did my mention of those two words to Jimmy do damage to Wikipedia? How does me clarifying to Jimmy represent pushing boundaries? You had zero reasons to call me out on daring to mention those two horrid words other than to push me while I'm down and try to get me blocked. You're not an admin, there are plenty of admins around and as you can see, they know how to ban for petty stuff and if they feel that mentioning those horrid words is something horrid, they will take care of it. They don't need you to do something about it. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:00, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

A personal, written invitation

Jimbo, I don't know if you recall our earlier discussion about Debbie Does Dallas, but you made some comments about the inclusion of a pornographic movie in A Free Ride. The "request for comment" I started on that topic will be closing soon, so if you would like to comment there, this is your chance. Right Hand Drive (talk) 21:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Just FYI

There is currently a matter being discussed at the policy village pump that may be appropriate for your intervention. Cheers. 50.153.133.28 (talk) 01:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Part 3) Flagrantly biased Wikipedia article on the "Murder of Anni Dewani"

In parts 1 and 2 (archive 205), it was brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales (talk) that the article is not only biased, but flagrantly so; misleading to unsuspecting Wikipedia viewers; and directly harmful to Anni Hindocha's surviving family. And the evidence and proof of the bias was presented succinctly and concisely. In attempting to refute this proof, the PR agent acting for Shrien Dewani used the pretense of claiming it was untrue that there were MULTIPLE COURT RULINGS WHICH FOUND IT TO BE A PROVEN FACT THAT ANNI'S KILLING WAS A MURDER FOR HIRE. By way of attempting to defend this bogus claim, the PR agent explains at length the reasons why she rejects the process that led to the very court rulings she was claiming don't even exist. In other words, what's really going on here is that the fact that multiple courts have found that Anni's murder was a contract killing doesn't suit her agenda, and therefore, she wants Wikipedia to censor and bury these rulings. Which Wikipedia is in fact currently doing. And which amounts to yet another violation of Wikipedia standards (namely, prohibiting articles from being based on personal agenda, opinion, or "analysis") to add to those violations already enumerated in parts 1 and 2.

No valid argument has been presented that can dispute the proof presented earlier that this Wikipedia article is unfair and unbalanced. In addition it is both misleading to unsuspecting Wikipedia readers, and directly harmful to Anni Hindocha's surviving family. If Wikipedia refuses to remove the bias from this article, it is shown to be deliberately violating not only objective standards of fairness, but it's own article standards as well. Therefore the article should be corrected. And I call upon not only Jimbo Wales (talk), but all objective, neutral Wikipedia editors to ensure that the bias from the article is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.114.129.229 (talk) 22:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Quack quack. This is a post by topic-banned user Lane99. Will administrators following this page please take appropriate action? While it is true that one of the editors on the topic of the Murder of Anni Dewani is a single-purpose account, this is a rare case where a single-purpose account is contributing positively to Wikipedia by disagreeing (along with various experienced editors with a diversity of interests) in combating BLP violations. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Done, thanks for pointing out the connection here. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 05:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Lane99/Al_Trainer/ahindocha/Factsnotlies/Noanon/Forbeshighland/Kesadilla22, your multiple sock/meat puppets have been banned for good reason. Your false and misleading claims about this crime being "proven" to be a contract killing have no place here on Wikipedia. You have specified the three rulings upon which you base your claim and it has been explained to you why those rulings carry no weight since they were all proven to be based on perjury.

• In the cases of Tongo and Qwabe, no findings were made. No trials were held. No witnesses were heard. No evidence was presented. No verifying of the confessions took place. These court proceedings were merely plea hearings rubber stamping pre agreed sentences for guilty pleas. Confessions were accepted at face value. The confessions later turned out to be filled with lies so they can be all but ignored.

• In the trial of Mngeni the court accepted the evidence of witnesses Qwabe and Mbolombo at face value and did make the finding that they participated in a contract killing. It later transpired during the 2014 S v Dewani matter that the evidence given by Qwabe and Mbolombo had been perjured and filled with lies. Mbolombo even admitted it. Therefore it would be completely misleading if Wikipedia were to state the Mngeni court's findings as fact, although they are mentioned in the article's section on the trial of Mngeni.

In summary, what this sock puppeteer terms "proven facts" are actually nothing more than fabricated stories told by lying criminals. This position is avowed by the court in S v Dewani. Paragraph 23.1 of the court's judgement in S v Dewani explicitly states that the only crimes that had been proven to have been planned in advance were the crimes of kidnapping and robbery.

23.1 It is clear that Mr. Tongo, Mr. Qwabe and Mr. Mngeni (and Mr. Mbolombo) acted in execution of a common purpose to commit at least the offences of kidnapping and robbery and possibly also other offences"

Paragraph 23.1 is irreconcilable with this sock puppeteer's claim that this crime was "proven" to be a murder for hire. In actual fact, it shows the sock puppeteer's claim to be patently false.

This sock puppeteer continues to make false unsubstantiated claims that I am a PR agent. Nothing new here. People associated with the "lynch Shrien Dewani" movement have been employing this strategy ever since the crime occurred, casting aspersions over the credibility of any journalist or online discussion participant who dared to present exculpatory facts that showed Mr Dewani to be innocent and accusing those people of being on the Dewani payroll. Such claims have never been substantiated but that doesn't stop the lynch mob from propagating the claims as though they are fact.

This sock puppeteer has been canvassing for meat puppets all over social media, attempting to find people to back his cause and has failed dismally. Even those who share this editor's view that Mr Dewani was complicit in the murder of his wife, have not taken up his cause on Wikipedia because even they realise that the facts and court findings do not support the claims being made.

Last but not least, it is distasteful in the extreme that this sock puppeteer should be employing emotional blackmail tactics by trying to draw the murder victim's family into this discussion, especially when he/she has actually tried to impersonate a member of the victim's family with his banned ahindocha account. There is no evidence of the murder victim's family being caused any distress by the contents of the Wikipedia article, and even if this were the case, it would not and should not influence the inclusion of neutral and reliably sourced consensus based content. Dewanifacts (talk) 10:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia is refusing to correct the article, despite its having been proven to be biased, and its having been shown to be in violation of multiple of Wikipedia's own ostensible standards. To make matters worse, the Wikipedia minions actively refusing to allow removal of the PR rhetoric from the article have effectively admitted they don't care if it is biased- citing legal concerns should they allow a balanced and NPOV article to be published. Does this make sense to you, Jimbo Wales? Surely if Wikipedia is afraid that telling the truth will get it in "legal hot water", then it is simply better to say nothing at all, rather than continuing to disseminate a knowingly dishonest and harmful article that rubs salt in the wounds of a murder victim's survivors, wouldn't you agree?207.102.255.202 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Quack. Quack. The only lies being told are those claiming that this was a murder for hire, when those findings fell apart in S. v. Dewani. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Socky. Jimbo clearly has little interest in engaging with your puppets. I believe you might find some solace in this page. Its time to drop the stick and slowly back away from the horse carcass. You are making a fool of yourself. Best Regards, Dewanifacts (talk) 00:13, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Beta Feature

Jimbo Wales - I moved my question to its own section so it doesn't get buried in any controversy. It's a simple question - in "Beta features" under our user Preferences, there's a feature that suggests related pages at the bottom of an article. There are currently 8,892 users trying it out. I think it's pretty remarkable and quite helpful. Is this feature somehow related to the concept of the Knowledge Engine - a simple yes or no will do. Thx Atsme^📞📧 17:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Related pages is being developed by the Reading team and not the Discovery team, so "no" is a reasonable guess. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 17:56, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Nihiltres. What I found at the related pages site was the following: [16] which suggests to me that it might be part of the concept for the Knowledge Engine. It certainly appears to be a vast improvement with a great deal of potential regarding WMF's move to keep readers engaged as well as to reach more readers. Atsme^📞📧 19:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Atsme I have written out a description of what I think the "Knowledge Engine" was as best I can gather it, and why it caused problems, here. And my answer to your question is "no" as well. Jytdog (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Important question about legal implications

Jimbo, you said in an earlier discussion that the pros and cons of embedding pornography in WP articles warranted discussion but it hasn't progressed further than a couple of RfCs. I recently came across the following information: In 2005, the Department of Justice issued regulations that expand the definition of a "secondary producer" of sexually explicit material. As of June 23, 2005, federal regulations apply the 2257 record-keeping requirement to secondary producers, and defines them as including anyone who "inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct." 73 Fed. Reg. at 77,468. The article Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography includes links to the laws of other countries as well. I'm not an attorney but based on the language in that particular law, it may warrant some degree of concern regarding the proposed practice of embedding videos like Debbie Does Dallas in an article. Don't you think it's something the WMF legal department should seriously consider? It doesn't have anything to do with censorship and everything to do with US Laws, not to mention the laws of other countries. I also think there should be a policy preventing the embedding of links like that in en.Wikipedia. It seems the legal implications are great enough to warrant legal input regarding the inclusion of such videos on WP:Commons. Just a suggestion - ball is in your court. Atsme^📞📧 15:44, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

2257 is a censorship law. Funnily enough censorship and US laws are not mutually exclusive. It only applies to material produced after 1 November 1990, so has no relevance to "Debbie Does Dallas". I would not be surprised if it were struck down, in whole or part, as being overbroad at some point.

However it is something the legal team should look into.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 16:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Thank you, Rich Farmbrough. I hope Jimbo follows through. Another question - should there be a banner of some sort stating that the content is not suitable for children under a certain age? I'm not at all familiar with pornographic laws and I don't want to get into the "morality" issues, but it seems that some kind of notice would be required by law - maybe not? Atsme^📞📧 17:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This is a perennial question, and probably covered at WP:VP(P) sub page on perennial questions. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Indeed it is #1. Wikipedia:Perennial_proposals#Content_warnings. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Ahhhh. Ok, thanks, Rich!! Atsme^📞📧 21:17, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What, didn't you watch the video? It actually starts off with a disclaimer about that 2257 nonsense. Oh, I'm not saying that some anti-porn fanatic couldn't make up a bogus argument that Wikipedia is all illegal, terribly illegal (it's been done before ... they had the FBI investigating and everything). But if anything comes of such a thing it's just terrorism by legal means, no different in probability or morality than if ISIS decides to go after people who add unflattering things about them. You can't really stop terrorism, but when you have a large group of editors the risk can be shared out to a very low level. Wnt (talk) 21:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• LOL* What video? 😇 Seriously, no - I was actually referring to the article. Atsme^📞📧 21:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Complaint

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Good Afternoon Mr. Wales,

I have a complaint about one your Administrators that goes by the name of @Favonian:. Favonian is doing a very poor job at being an administrator of Wikipedia. I feel that he or she is too harsh on other editors by blocking them for weeks or up to a month. and I've seen some reports that Favonian has been calling names and just flat out disrespecting other editors and sometimes blocking for no reason. So my recommendation to you is that he/she gets fired from administrating and I think Wikipedia can use a whole new set of Administrators so that way editors can contribute and not have to worry about a problem. Thanks for reading and your consideration--Doug511 (talk) 21:03, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

It's interesting that you have seen so much conduct from Favonian and yet this is your first edit, Doug511. Did you previously edit under another account(s)? Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:11, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bingo! I think that administrator User:Favonian and administrator User:Liz are excellent and respected administrators. If you have a real complaint that doesn't rise to a request for desysopping, go to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. If you really really really think that they should be desysopped, go to Arbitration Requests. However, it appears that your complaint is that you were blocked under a different name. If so, you are a sockpuppet, and Wikipedia is very intolerant of sockpuppetry. With a few exceptions, any human in the world may edit, but only with one account. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I can assure you this is the first account I have ever had on Wikipedia and before I even thought about becoming a contributer I took time to observe the site and that's when I noticed issues with not only Favonian but a few other Admins as well.--Doug511 (talk) 16:51, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The statement that this is the only account under which you have edited, and you have made only two edits, complaining about abusive administrators, and made no other edits, is incredible, that is, not worthy of belief by a rational human being. (Even if it is true, it isn't capable of rational belief.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So what exactly is this page for?

Is this where I can post essays like the following:

Morlock Eat Eloi

There are two kinds of people in this world: those who put people into two categories and those who don't. I fall into the first category. That having been said, I will continue by stating that there are two kinds of Wikipedians; there are the Morlock and there are the Eloi.

As you probably know from the H. G. Wells story “The Time Machine”, the Morlock were the brutal, rough people who labored in the harsh underground conditions of a distant future for the purpose of supplying the Eloi. The recipients of the Morlock labor, the Eloi, on the other hand, were gentle, insipid folk who lived an easy, carefree life above ground in the sweet light of day, supported by the labor of the Morlock. Unfortunately for the Eloi, Morlock eat Eloi.

That having been said, I will explain that there are two kinds of Wikipedians: there are the Morlock and there are the Eloi. The Morlock of Wikipedia I characterize as rude, vain, arrogant, conceited, territorial, thick-skinned, tough, and very, very tenacious. The Eloi are, for the most part, the polar opposite with a touch of naiveté. Once again, unfortunately for the Eloi, Morlock eat Eloi. Slowly but surely, over the years, the Morlock have “eaten”, chased off, or discouraged the Eloi of Wikipedia and as a result the Morlock are over represented.

I've heard the lament that there are not enough women editors of Wikipedia. I'm sure that that's true and it would be unfortunate if such an important venue of knowledge and a possible shaper of the public's perspective on the truth should be dominated by a narrow group, to the exclusion of many others. But the focus on the lack of women editors is narrow. The problem is that women are a large part of the kinder, the gentler folk I've humorously described as Eloi, and women are a part of the group driven off of Wikipedia. Among the kinder, gentler people, driven away are are a wide variety of people with valuable skills and perspectives, many of whom happen to be women. I will reiterate, Morlock eat Eloi.

Years ago I read, on someone's personal page, a lament to the effect that the rougher people of Wikipedia were driving off a great many good people. I now appreciate what that person was saying and believe it to be true. On the other hand, it might be possible that my perspective is warped by early, nasty experiences. One of the Morlock, a person well known as irascible, aggressive, and tenacious, and with whom I had personally sparred, recently “retired.” He is gone and I remain; the fact of which gives me worry that I am among those I condemn. On the other hand, it just might be confirmation the happy truth that progress is made, one death at a time.

Just thought I'd ask Zedshort (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that's a nice little essay, but it completely misconstrues the central idea that the Fabian socialist Wells was trying to convey, about the unpleasant ultimate reality to be expected under a social system in which a vapid elite extracts wealth from a repressed and oppressed working class. I suppose I should embrace the idea that there exists some sort of prettified but ultimately soulless friendly spacer elite extracting a pampered existence from the hard work of a rough-and-tumble producing class -- but I'm certainly not going to glorify such a state of affairs. Wells wasn't trying to endorse and salute the continuation of a pompous and idle ruling class, he was trying to warn of the dangers of failing to treat workers fairly. Advice to live by... Carrite (talk) 18:59, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow!! Much to munch on, but I think you missed the point. Zedshort (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought your essay was cute and did make a point about problems with bullying here, and I agree that women are probably less likely to tolerate it than men. I agree that is why we lose good editors and the editing environment has a disproportionate # of bullies. I do also agree with Carrite that the metaphor has some problems compared to what Wells had intended. The Eloi would be even bigger bullies than the Morlocks and eat the Morlocks if necessary as in Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal.

I have not noticed a tendency in me or others who are not bullies to become bullies, but quite the opposite: we become increasingly upset by the bullying and the inability to do anything about it. The bullies are able to use double-standards and are somehow immune from prosecution and have admins that back them up. Perhaps you have attained such a level, but if so, I hope you recognize that being able to wield power unfairly and not be held accountable is not good for anyone, including yourself. We should all be held to the same standards. And that is not what happens here: Some are able to get away with things routinely that those they disagree with would be severely punished by them for doing only once. That is why I am a strong advocate for juries; The bullies will be exposed for what they are: The Emperor has No Clothes. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:09, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I assure you that I am not a bully. I actually have never, even on the playground, been in a fight. Nor do I resort to sarcasm (a sign of an unbalanced mind) nor beat people with swarms of words nor quote a twisted and selected set of rules. Actually, I believe that the bullies will immediately resort to rule quoting (in a very selective manner) as a cudgel to get their narrow way. I have, however, become a more bold editor and will go to people's talk page and talk to them in a very direct manner. I find, when I do that, they back down. I am direct and to the point but keep it professional. I really hope I don't come across as rude, but in their minds it might appear that way. Actually, I don't quote the rules as I see that as a sign of a weak mind, and I have never resorted to an admin. as I believe them to be tainted. Some are able to get their way as they are politicians who know how to work a very convoluted system. Zedshort (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I will explain that there are two kinds of Wikipedians... Wikipedians are real people, and they are more complex than that. If you feel there are only two kinds, you need to get to know people better. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 19:16, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you seriously think that I don't know that people (individuals) are more complex than that? The problem is, when people join groups their behavior changes. One dog is lonely, but if it has you it is happy, if it has you and another dog it is really happy, if a third dog joins, you have the beginning of a wolf-pack and the personality of the group changes dramatically and for the worse. Zedshort (talk) 20:30, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't disagree that behavior changes in group settings (especially anonymous settings), and it's completely true that folks engage in behaviors that exclude and hurt other editors. But I don't see a lot of value in categorizing or describing editors in this manner, and it doesn't help me understand why things like editors leaving or that far fewer women participate here are happening. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 21:38, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

What I have written is an obvious exaggeration for the purpose of providing contrast and an attempt to explain the decrease of the number of editors and what I believe a concentration of the most aggressive, technical and male types. How could you not understand that aggressive, and territorial people chase off the more gentle and less territorial? That puzzles me. Call me a male chauvinist, but I do believe that women react to aggressive behavior in a very different manner than do men. I recall hearing an interview with a basketball coach, who after coaching men's teams went on to coach a women's team. He said that in the case of men, you could get into their faces and shout at them (actually needed to do so) to get them to listen to him and improve their performance. When he took the same tactic to a women's team, he found that the women did not respond so well to being shouted at, in fact they came unglued. He came to understand he could use more gentle tactics and just talk to them. Such a revelation! I worked for a woman in an engineering company, who found she got a better response from her team by lowering her voice an octave when she talked directly with them. It was rather humourous. Believe me, women editors are chased off along with a lot of good male editors by those rougher people, and as the process of correcting those Morlock is very shakey, the Morlock have essentially taken over. Inviting in more women editors will do no good unless the culture is changed. If you want a suggestion as to how to do that go to my talk page and read my proposal. Zedshort (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Right, so I think what we generally disagree on is the framing of these sets of observations, not whether these things happen or not. That women don't want to participate on Wikipedia is also distressing to me, and I agree that aggression pushes them away (and editors in general), and it's unacceptable. I agree that some men promote or spuriously justify this kind of behavior, and that's not OK either. If this metaphor helps you understand these behaviors, that's fine, but I don't find it helpful to start calling editors these names; they seem arbitrary, not compelling, and awkward. And that's not a criticism of you at all, or using metaphors generally, just me trying to be honest that this particular metaphor doesn't resonate with me at all. Furthermore, I am hesitant to presume that I know exactly what behavioral expectations women have in this project or in general. I don't know that they want to be treated "more gently." It seems more reasonable to say that editors, especially women and folks with other gender identities, shouldn't be harassed. The degree to which it happens is embarrassing. The culture does indeed need to change, and to do that, we need to agree about what kind of behavior is not acceptable (like the kinds you have described) and both encourage and enforce those expectations as a community in whatever areas we work in, and I believe this is possible because Wikipedia is not dominated by a narrow group of people who actively exclude others. We also need to promote and encourage productive editing and interactions as we observe them. In the end for me, it really comes down to the behavior and how we deal with it collectively. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 01:52, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

There isn't much to it. To make things go smoothly, just act in a polite and professional manner. I too find the lack of female editors to be disturbing and a sign of lack of health of the system. There is nothing I want more than to see a more diverse group of people represented in all walks of life and so too with WP. But acting in a polite manner is a matter of how you were raised and hence what you bring here. Acting in a professional manner requires a mixture of life experience and maturity of mind that typically comes with age. The body of editors may be too young and brassy to display that characteristic. Also, what you said here, "I believe this is possible because Wikipedia is not dominated by a narrow group of people who actively exclude others.", smacks of wishful thinking, perhaps there is a typo in that. As far as encouragement, giving a thumbs up on a good edit is nice, but I seldom use it. Perhaps we need a thumbs down button. I work solely by myself and really, really don't like groups; I love people, it's just humanity I can't stand. Zedshort (talk) 14:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"I believe this is possible because Wikipedia is not dominated by a narrow group of people who actively exclude others.", smacks of wishful thinking, perhaps there is a typo in that. No typos. I speak from my experience working in many areas here, and especially with new editors. The problematic behavior is too frequent, but I reject that it is dominant. There is so much good happening in this project: The Teahouse, Editor of the Week, reforms to the RfA process, peer-review processes, edit-a-thons, thanks, and editors cordially working together in ordinary and yet important ways on talk pages, even on contentious topics. There are editors with the courage to face harassment and turn it into something productive. There is an editor from Cuba whose government makes it difficult to obtain Internet access and she has worked so hard and with other editors to contribute to this project because it is important to her. I helped out at an edit-a-thon here in Chicago this past weekend where 23 people, mostly women, edited Wikipedia for the first time and they had a positive experience. You're welcome to believe I am engaging in wishful thinking when I reject the notion that bad conduct rules the day here, but I don't think that is particularly fair to the great deal of good happening all the time. I, JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:44, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds like you are doing some very good work. Thank you! I agree with everything you said. In non-controversial topics, there is going to be less bullying for sure, so I agree that it is unfair to portray everything about the project as being like those areas where there is conflict. Part of what I find so valuable about Wikipedia is that it is not driven by a corporate agenda of distributing information with the sole purpose of making money or as part of propaganda. People for a while trusted it as an NPOV source as it is supposed to be. But I think the public has caught on that it is not always so NPOV--when professors told them it is too unreliable to be cited for university papers. (For example our drug articles often leave out negative information about medications [17].) Also, now the corporate interests have found ways to manipulate the information, and that is something that concerns me, which I fear will take away a lot of what has made Wikipedia so special and unique compared to traditional encyclopedias like Britannica or World Book. --David Tornheim (talk) 03:50, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

I think our WP:PAG standards elaborately explain (and have explained almost from the beginning) what proper behavior is and the standards are fairly well set out and that harassment in unacceptable. But they are not enforced evenly, because the justice system works more like a set of good ole boys networks. If you are part of one of the good ole boys' networks, you can do no wrong or maybe get slapped on the wrist. If you aren't, well, good luck, maybe you will get a nice admin. who is even handed, or maybe you'll be sent to the gallows, even if your accuser was the bigger problem and was harassing you. This is why I would like a jury system. The good ole boys would not be able to self-administer their own proceedings and stack the deck and use obfuscation and walls-of-text to hide the injustice. Instead, they would be just as accountable as anyone else. --David Tornheim (talk) 09:36, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

While admins. might be useful, since they are voted for they too might be drawn from the body of Morloc. I have failed in the past to vote on admins. as I really don't want to get sucked into politics but I'm sure that my mindset times 1000 will produce no good. The idea of a jury of ordinary editors to pass judgement on conflicts might work. But better still would be to add thousands of more eyes on WP. To that end I propose a change to the direction of WP that would draw in many people (probably older and female) that by shear force of numbers of their eyes would dampen the behavior of all but the most criminal of Morloc. A study of was done years ago wherein a subject was place in front of a mirror. They found that the subject's behavior became more moral. I think it was concluded that simply having the subject's eyes on himself imposed a sort of moral rule on that person. Having many more eyes looking at each and every one of us will improve our behavior. There is however a thing called a criminal, or perhaps should be called a psychopath, that cannot be corrected and must be shown the door. In the mean time, while we all find ourselves abused, the system must churn and churn to finally expel that individual. I am certain that such people stalk us here, and some may work in packs. Zedshort (talk) 14:01, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Have you looked at the data on number of editors? It was at its peak back in 2007and has declined almost every year since then. I haven't seen the data for page views. I think that has been going down too. But the # of articles always goes up, and the # of good ones go up with it. I don't think of voting for admins. as political, but perhaps it is. As for the jury, under my concept the bullies don't get very far--if all the other jurors vote unanimously they can kick a trouble-maker off. And the jury would need to have around 2/3 or 3/4 majority to make their decision--closer to the "consensus" idea we are supposed to be striving for. --David Tornheim (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Also, I imagine you will find that editor's behavior changes a lot as they gain experience. Editor A is not the same editor with the same outlook after they have been editing for five years vs. five months. Not only are there many different types of WikiFauna, with different interests and talents but also editors change over time. An editor who began focusing on content could move over to work on mediation and AFD discussions a year or two later. Some editors just work on the thankless task of reducing categories with backlogs that sometimes contain tens of thousands of articles/pages. While I think you make a good point that new editors shouldn't be chased away, I think that even with having a low percentage of women editors, there is a lot more diversity on Wikipedia than your model acknowledges. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 21:54, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Again what I have written is an obvious exaggeration for effect, but I am sure that it explains much. Zedshort (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm hungry. Where is the pompous and idle ruling class when I need them? Jytdog (talk) 02:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

@I JethroBT: You write "... shouldn't be harassed. The degree to which it happens is embarrassing", with a link to the 2015 harassment survey report. But we don't know the degree to which it happens, because the preliminary report counted zero answers (for the number of times respondents experienced each form of harassment) as cases of harassment as well. Because they didn't want to admit their mistake, those numbers weren't corrected in the revised report, they were removed, and meaningless "averages" were given instead. Averages based on unrealistic values given by a small number of respondents (for "hacking" and "revenge porn", it can be proven that at least 50% of the counted instances must come from people who reported having experienced 60 or more such separate incidents. Do you know a single editor whose WP account was hacked 60 times!?) The WMF still has the data and could give useful results if they wanted to: the number of respondents who reported 1 or more incidents, a figure that would be much less affected by inflated claims by some users (which were likely a result of the bad interface: having to use sliders with a range from 0 to 100). But they rather not admit to their embarrassing mistake. Prevalence 02:45, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Editors in sun are Eloi stalked by Morlock

At the core of the metaphor, many of the happy editors in the sunlight do not even realize, at first, how they are being bitterly watched, from the shadows (or the cesspool), by those trying to find reasons to attack. The new Eloi might become too vocal, imagining they are surrounded by eager, fun-loving college students hanging around with open minds or creative inspiration, only to learn how the Morlock dwell in darkness for many obsequious reasons, and "fun-loving" is not a typical trait amongst them. When the time is right, the happy Eloi will suffer and suffer, for imagining life could be so wonderful, exciting, and joyful; the wrath of the Morlock will soon enough extinguish the Eloi and their excessive, pleasant outlook. It is so easy to demoralize them, in a slow death spiral, revert and revert and revert, but not so fast that they would leave; no, instead just sideways insult and insult, then blocks, but later delete and delete and delete, block some more and topic ban, before yes, site ban to completely demoralize those happy Eloi who do not realize life is meant for continual insults, mindless pain, and endless suffering. Yes, that just about sums it up. ROFLMAO!! -Wikid77 (talk) 08:11, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I have the impression that your experience here on WP has been tainted and you have become a little bitter. I can very much relate to that. I hope to avoid carrying the analogy too far but from a higher level perhaps the we should look at this as predator vs prey behavior. The Eloy (prey) have been decimated and a monoculture of Morloc remain very much to the detriment of the project. There are fewer and fewer eyes with the result that the Morloc become emboldened and will push harder and harder. I suspect that the idea of a self governing system that does not become a monoculture over time is foolishly naive. Any system must have a body of rules to keep it functioning smoothly, but also be flexible to adapt to new situations and grow. If the direction of growth is imposed by a set of internal meta-rules, dictated from the the highest level of Wikimedia Board, they should be vague otherwise they would be stultifying, if the rules are imposed from the lowest level, they will be imposed by the most active/aggressive and become a cancer growing within, if the rules are imposed from without, they will come in the form of starvation of funds and perhaps by being ignored and treated as irrelevant. Alternatively, WP might be replaced by a wealthy person, starting another encyclopedia that does not have the flaws associated with self-governance built into it. Personally I hope for he latter. Afterall, all of the material of WP is free to be copied and used by anyone, and I will vote with my feet. Zedshort (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I freaking love this thread. Please keep it going...forever. 166.176.59.112 (talk) 09:10, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Zedshort's analogy has some validity. It's useful to keep coming up with descriptions of the bullying that goes on, or has gone on, and to discuss what can be done. (Is there any way Jimbo Wales and/or a group of dedicated editors could actually itemize many of the bullying cases, and apologize to the victims? I imagine a lot of departed victims would come back eventually to look up the messages to them, if a big project to make amends that way was done, and maybe it could actually really make a difference. That's my naive idea of the day.) Wikid77's extrapolation, apparently meant sarcastically(?) spells it out reasonably well in terms of customizing it better to the processes of Wikipedia. That describes the experience of a lot of new editors...what they experience in effect, whether or not the Morlocks are unified and alike, they have that effect, and, there really are, or have been, "wicked" editors acting in the way Wikid77 describes. Wikid77, is your username by any chance a reference to such behavior? --doncram 02:04, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@Doncram:, my username is from "wiki" "id" plus 77 as a short form of "777" versus Biblical "666" (the "mark of the beast"), and so the comparisons to word 'wicked' have been interesting. If people said some admins were "full of the devil" then I wouldn't argue otherwise. I still think enwiki needs term limits for admins, perhaps 3-year terms with re-RfA similar to the 1-year terms for Swedish Wikipedia admins after 2006, but something needs to be done to divide the admin workload among dozens of admins in each area, rather than a handful of admins making most decisions. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:00, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

It is certainly the case that at least two prominent Wikipedians spent the vast majority of their Wiki-career to date seeking, acquiring and using (some might say abusing) positions of power in the community - and very little effort on content - and would fit well with your definition of Morlocks. These type of fasces collectors are, however, not the only problem users with power. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC).

Greetings

Hello there! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.85.7.41 (talk) 14:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 09 March 2016

• News and notes: Katherine Maher named interim head of WMF; Wales email re-sparks Heilman controversy; draft WMF strategy posted

• In the media: Wikipedian is break-out star of International Women's Day; dinosaur art; Wikipedia's new iOS app and its fight for market share

• Op-ed: A modest proposal for Wikimedia’s future

• Featured content: Five articles, four lists, a topic, and five images were promoted this week.

• Technology report: Wikimedia wikis will temporarily go into read-only mode on several occasions in the coming weeks

• WikiCup report: First round of the WikiCup finishes

• Blog: The new alchemy: turning online harassment into Wikipedia articles on women scientists

• Systemic bias: Revenge of "I can’t believe we didn’t have an article on ..."

• Traffic report: All business like show business

• Read this Signpost in full
• Single-page
• Unsubscribe
• MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:53, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Disclosure of the full scope of the Knowledge Engine

All this seems to have fallen off the page. Jimmy, I for one remain hungry for a forthright disclosure of the scope of the knowledge engine and the shenanigans that went on around that. I am still hopeful you can pivot on your approach to this. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Could you explain, in detail, in what way you find the answers you got in User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 204#Where we left the discussion unacceptable?

"Focus on the deliverables. The grant document talks about a lot of things which are barely even ideas at this point - the deliverables are relatively precise, but what happens next is (deliberately) kept open-ended." --Jimbo Wales[18]

--Guy Macon (talk) 15:02, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. I'm not sure what I'm being asked here. Jytdog, could you be more specific?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

After the events, it looks like all this Knowledge Engine was the required  just cause to provide some smoke screen in the factional battle against Lila Tretikov. Between [Template:Staff_and_contractors&oldid=103682] and now, the WMF staff has grown from 265 to 289, 65 names have disappeared, while 89 have appeared. Among the 200 that stayed, 120 have kept their job description. So that 80 have changed of job description. From something to Senior something, from Senior something to Director of something, etc. May be such an increase of seniority will help fixing the software problems. Pldx1 (talk) 19:00, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

"Many in the community were furious that details of such a large project had been withheld by an organization that prides itself on radical transparency. Wikimedia’s public story—that it was never working on a search engine—was directly contradicted by a grant proposal made to the Knight Foundation and leaked internal documents."

 —Jason Koebler, Vice[19]

Jimbo Wales, I understand you are willing to discuss the Knight Foundation grant and Knowledge Engine. One of the main issues is what were the events leading up to the Lila Tretikov's resignation and your involvement. The Knight Foundation grant was presented to the board members in September 2015, but Lila Tretikov and other board members initially refused to allow the full details of the grant to be shared with James Heilman. Jimbo Wales, did you tell Lila Tretikov to make the Knowledge Engine project completely transparent to the other board members or did you tell her not to share the full details of the grant and engine or did you not say anything specific to Lila Tretikov in September and October 2015 regarding the grant or search engine project. People want to know what really happened since the project and events are still shrouded in secrecy.

Jimbo Wales, the initial blogpost by Wes Moran and Lila Tretikov contradicted the original grant application leaked internal documents. The leaked internal documents states the "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia will democratize the discovery of media, news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant information more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an open data engine that's completely free of commercial interests. Our new site will be the Internet’s first transparent search engine, and the first one that carries the reputation of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation." According to the leaked internal documents, the Knowledge Engine was originally intended to be a search engine on a new site and there is a concern that "Google, Yahoo, or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project, which could reduce the success of the project."[20] Jimbo Wales, did you tell or not tell Lila Tretikov to inform the Wikipedia community regarding the full details of the Knowledge Engine project? I am not sure what happened since Lila Tretikov never revealed all the grant documents. Jimbo Wales, was the Knowledge Engine project originally intended to be a much bigger project run on a new separate website, according to the leaked internal documents? Lila Tretikov never commented on the leaked internal documents as far as I know. For an organization that prides itself on transparency, I think it is odd that the WMF has not published an official statement regarding the original intention of the Knowledge Engine project and what is the current goal. If you did urge the board and/or the WMF towards full publication of the details of the grant and project how come the details and events have not been fully disclosed yet? User:Eloquence, the former Deputy Director of the WMF, is concerned about the current situation.[21] I hope you can clear up the confusion a bit. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 01:21, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: since you pinged me, just briefly interjecting: I was talking specifically about the deterioration of staff morale at that time, and the risk of literally losing people who keep the site running. That risk has been significantly mitigated since then, though the org is still in crisis mode and hopefully will enter a stable interim period soon.-Eloquence* 01:44, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Eloquence, what or who do you think is the cause of the crisis situation at the WMF? According to Ariel Glenn of the WMF, it is "not just about an [Executive Director]."[22]. There is more to the story. What is happening at the WMF? QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

@QuackGuru: I can't speak for Ariel and I don't know everything that happened, but I know there was significant concern about how the Board handled the situation in November, about the James Heilman vote, and the Geshuri appointment. All of this coming together really hit people hard and significantly eroded trust in the Board. To their credit, Jimmy and Alice have since spent considerable time with staff, but I think more will likely need to happen, including better training for Board members, greater Board transparency, etc. Some of those conversations are ongoing on wikimedia-l and you're welcome to join them. Right now folks are waiting for the interim management responsibilities to be clarified.--Eloquence* 03:39, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, in your comment above you presented as if it was an established fact that "Lila Tretikov and other board members initially refused to allow the full details of the grant to be shared with James Heilman", yet your link goes to an editorial opinion by James Heilman. We have already established that we are hearing two different and incompatible stories, one from James Heilman and another from Jimbo Wales and, it appears, the rest of the board. There are no verifiable facts that would allow you or I to make a ruling on which story is correct, so it comes down to who you believe. This has all been discussed at length before and doesn't need to be re-argued here. My point is that you just acted as if one of the two stories is an established fact. Contrast this with my comment below, where I clearly attribute Jimbo Wales' opinion to Jimbo Wales with a diff. Please do the same when you reference the opinions of individuals, and avoid presenting opinions as facts.

You also claim that "I think it is odd that the WMF has not published an official statement regarding the original intention of the Knowledge Engine project". This has been asked before and has been answered by board member Jimbo Wales:

"Focus on the deliverables. The grant document talks about a lot of things which are barely even ideas at this point - the deliverables are relatively precise, but what happens next is (deliberately) kept open-ended." --Jimbo Wales[23]

That is an answer, whether you are willing to accept the answer or not. The original intention of the Knowledge Engine project was (deliberately) kept open-ended, and various documents about the Knowledge Engine project talk about a lot of blue-sky things which were and still are are barely even ideas. Ignore them and focus on the deliverables. --Guy Macon (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikimedia’s User Experience Engineer Julien Girault stated "At some point, we start feeling shame about what we’re doing, which causes problems. 3 of our goals are about search. The Knight grant talks about a search engine, and some mock-ups look like google. There are legitimate reasons people might think we might be planning to create a google competitor."[24]

There is no clear message from the WMF what were the original plans and what are the current plans for the project.

Maybe you can also read the little blue quote box above for us. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 03:22, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a clear message from the WMF about what the project is and was WM:FAQ. see also, Joint Press release with the Knight foundation. As for transparency and limitations, that it will necessarily be transparent, and have many limits, is the nature of creating open source freely licensed software, which is what is being worked on. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:48, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

QuackGuru, your "little blue quote box", along with your comments and the comments made by the VICE writer (which pretty much accuiratly report what you and others feel about this), all ask the WMF to do two completely incompatible things:

1. Be completely transparent, letting the Wikipedia community know every detail of any preliminary brainstorming, including bad or poorly-thought-out ideas. For example, if somebody floats the idea of a general-purpose search engine, report that. When everyone looks at that idea and shoots it down, report that.
2. Only present to the Wikipedia community finished, good, and well-thought-out plans. For example, if somebody floats the idea of a general-purpose search engine, keep that proposal secret. When everyone looks at that idea and shoots it down, act as if it never happened.

The WMF chose the second path, which I think was a mistake. But they made that choice in an environment where you and others do not seem to be willing to let them float bad ideas during the preliminary planning stages but instead insist on holding them responsible for every idea they reveal. So of course they try to keep the early brainstorming secret. Add to this the legitimate fear that pissing of even a small minority of the Wikipedia community can (and has recently) get a WMF staff member fired.

This is essentially a problem that we created. If we want transparency, we need to dial down the criticism of what gets revealed and accept the fact that many of the preliminary ideas and plans that get revealed are going to suck. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

A lot of effort has gone into into suppressing the above comment,[25][26][27][28][29] but responding to the arguments in the comment? Not so much. (sad trombone noise...) --Guy Macon (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Question for Jimbo Wales - in "Beta features" under our user Preferences, there's a feature that suggests related pages at the bottom of an article. There are currently 8,892 users trying it out. I think it's pretty remarkable and quite helpful. Is this feature somehow related to the concept of the Knowledge Engine? Atsme^📞📧 14:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

• Jimmy, thanks for replying above. There is a gaping hole, where I am looking for the story of what transpired over last year and a half or so, loosely centered on the KE (what was planned, by whom, the lack of transparency around that (within the WMF and with respect to the community), and how that played into James's dismissal and the ugly knot of stuff that happened leading to that, and Lila's ultimate failure to be an effective ED). All that stuff is one story - a series of events that happened in real time. What is that story? If you don't know it, you don't know it. If you have a piece of it, you have a piece of it. But your responses to my questions in our earlier discussion were empty - either high level to the point of having no information, or negating small points. Leaving a hole in the face of my questions. (Analogy: My question: "Where is the hardware store?" Your answers: "Well hardware stores are great, and we have one. It is a really great store when it has everything in stock - ladders and hammers and nails and whatnot, But boy it runs out of stuff a lot. I wish it were close to the bus station but it isn't". Me, thinking the first time: "ummm, where is the hardware store?" Me thinking after the fourth time: "OK, this guy has no intention of telling me where the hardware store is")

I know that you owe me nothing. You showed me that, very clearly. I keep hoping you will be actually transparent, and just out with it, instead of obfuscating. I know you did some ugly things that have not been made public yet, and you clearly made some mistakes. So what. Out with it. Right now, you are part of the problem. The longer you persist in obfuscating, the more irrelevant you become to making this place function better, and the more we just have to work make that happen without you. I am pretty much out of hope with regard to you, and am turning to other efforts, like getting the board elected, so we have people who are actually accountable on the board. But I'll keep asking, to give you the chance.

So, do you have information to provide - can you tell at least part of the story? (btw I would prefer that you don't reply at all, if you don't have actual information to provide.) Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Dog - You don't have to ask the same question for the 27th time. All you have to do is accept that Jimbo has given you an answer, whether or not you like the answer or not. It's time to stop beating a dead horse, back away and drop the stick. Yes, you are being obnoxious. See WP:Don't be intentionally obnoxious Smallbones_(smalltalk) 22:00, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Bones. Jimmy is free to give me a nonanswer, but I do not have to accept a nonanswer. Jimmy asked me a question and I replied and you are inserting yourself again inappropriately. You are apparently unaware of the wider conversations going on about this, if you think I am the only one raising these issues. Jytdog (talk) 23:17, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Your question is (for the 27th time) "I am looking for the story of what transpired over last year and a half or so, loosely centered on the KE." You've had Jimbo's answer to that several times. At some point, well past, you should have understood that repeating yourself ad nauseam is obnoxious. Please stop being obnoxious. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, if you wish to have a conversation with Jimbo without others doing what you call "inserting yourself inappropriately", send him an email. As long as you choose to make your comments here, anyone is allowed to respond as they see fit. You are correct that you do not have to accept what you consider to be a "nonanswer", but you are not allowed to ask it again and again after it becomes clear that it is the only answer that you are going to get. In my opinion, the answer was fine and that your refusal to accept it has nothing to do with it being a "nonanswer" and everything to do with it being a direct, clear answer that you don't like. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy asked me what I meant. I answered him, "in detail" as he requested. You too are butting in inappropriately. Jimmy is a big boy and doesn't need your protection. Jytdog (talk) 20:50, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:25, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

• I, and others, do look forward to hearing from you, Jimmy. Jytdog (talk) 01:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not preserve knowledge

Wikipedia does not serve the purpose of preservation of knowledge. This is because: 1) Every information needs an available source (to be checked). 2) If the source disappears (web-sites go off-line all the time, happens even to newspaper articles after some years), it doesn't matter how many times it was checked that what Wikipedia says is in accordance with the source, the information needs to be deleted if we can't find another source for that same info. So, if a catastrophe was to happen and all humanity were to have left after it was Wikipedia, then it would be the same as having nothing, because all the information at the articles would need to be deleted. Tusyas (talk) 06:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

This is known as link rot and there are various ways of dealing with it; Wikipedia has its own policy, WP:LINKROT. Two common ways round this problem are to use the Wayback Machine, which has an archive of web pages showing how they looked at various stages in the past, or WebCite, which allows users to archive a web page of their choice. Since the earliest days of the web in the 1990s, there have been concerns about the loss of data due to the transitory nature of web pages.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:25, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the OP is quite correct: Wikipedia does not have the purpose of preservation of knowledge. The purpose of Wikipedia is to make knowledge accessible to the world, not to preserve it. That task belongs to other entities. Looie496 (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think those of us who were left after such a catastrophe would go with common sense and consider Wikipedia its own source at that point... 80.229.152.168 (talk) 20:07, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I think if a catastrophe like that happened, that eliminated all forms of knowledge except Wikipedia, Wikipedia wouldn't be on the top of list of my concerns. I mean, this catastrophe would somehow involve the elimination of all libraries, heck, all books, all universities and schools. No, I wouldn't be worrying about sourcing on Wikipedia at that moment, I'd be concerned with the deterioration of human society. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 20:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Liz, in many regards, that's already happening without such a catastrophe. Atsme^📞📧 22:10, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Serious question for Jimbo Wales

Jimbo, do you really support this utter fucking complete bullshit rollback performed on your user page? Enquiring minds want to know. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 10:44, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Language, dear. I'll leave it to Jimbo to decide how he wants to spell this. It is a WP:ENGVAR issue with some more detail here and here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:07, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I really don't care one way or the other. I mostly care that people not fight about silly things.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:24, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

"tsk! tsk!", Ian. Didn't you know Jimbo has strong American ties? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Despite what the BBC article says, many British people do use -ize spellings nowadays and they are not considered to be wrong. In my younger days, British teachers would have crossed this out with a red pen. You wouldn't believe how much talk page space has been taken up at Color because some people want it to be spelled Colour. There is an infobox template asking people not to do this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, sorry, I meant strong American tize. N.B. spelt differently in Scottish. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:54, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The OED uses vandalize, see Oxford spelling for more information. DuncanHill (talk) 15:53, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm... our article Canadian English gives paralyze as an example of following the Greek -izo root, while our article Oxford spelling gives paralyse as an example of maintaining "se" because it has the Greek -lyo root. Wiktionary wikt:paralyse says paralyze is frequently used in Canada, and they all blame the French, but this doesn't settle the issue. Is there an etymologist in the house? Wnt (talk) 16:57, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Another hmmmm...paralyze...paralyziz....no wait, it's paralysis but paralyze...cheez, no cheese...oh well, who gives a zhit. 😆 Atsme^📞📧 17:56, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

While this is clearly a case where the minor difference doesn't matter, in many cases it hinders communication if we don't use the same spelling or grammar. Yes, you can decide to use non-standard fleemishes and the reader can still gloork the meaning from the context, but there ix a limit; If too many ot the vleeps are changed, it becomes harder and qixer to fllf what the wethcz is blorping, and evenually izs is bkb longer possible to ghilred frok at wifx. Dnighth? Ngfipht yk ur! Uvq the hhvd or hnnngh. Blorgk? Blorgk! Blorgkity-blorgk!!!! --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

We have the technology available to make this a display choice. Chinese has three versions of their alphabet and one wikipedia where things are displayed according to the icon you choose. I appreciate that a colonial spelling of English is more complex than simply removing half the "u"s and randomly adding "ation" to the longest word in each sentence. But it is doable and would end lots of faff ϢereSpielChequers 14:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• We should Table the discussion. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 18:53, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

troll someone makes the Hungarian Wikipedia

• https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szerkesztő:Apród
• https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szerkesztővita:Apród — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barlangász 92 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 March 2016

• News and notes: Wikipedia Zero: Orange mobile partnership in Africa ends; the evolution of privacy loss in Wikipedia

• In the media: Wales at SXSW; lawsuit over Wikipedia PR editing

• Op-ed: Hard work needed to address Wikimedia’s leadership challenges

• Discussion report: Is an interim WMF executive director inherently notable?

• Featured content: This week's featured content

• Technology report: Watchlists, watchlists, watchlists!

• Traffic report: Donald Trump, the 45th President of the United States

• Wikipedia Weekly: Podcast #119: The Foundation and the departure of Lila Tretikov

• Blog: It “revolutionized the way German-speaking people inform themselves about the world”: Fifteen years of the German Wikipedia

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Offending Administrator User: Moondyne

Hi Jimbo,

I'm having trouble with an administrator User:Moondyne and I think he/she is a problem for many users. I've been editing constructively and in good faith. However, User:Moondyne has acted very aggressively and condescendingly toward me, threatening to block me on numerous occasions. When I'm having a debate with other users, he has threatened to block me because he disagrees with me and considers my side of editing to be disruptive and against Wikipedia policy. I don't believe him to be a bad person, but I would like for him not to be involved in my editing, and instead let me discuss with the other users, without the threat of being blocked hovering over me. Could you please advise as to what I should do?

Thank you!

96.248.68.27 (talk) 02:27, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit constructively. Do not yell "Censorship" to "win" a content dispute. Discuss collaboratively with the other editor rather than combatively. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This is also not the page for such a "complaint". But do first discuss this with the other editors in question to try and reach a consensus. Kierzek (talk) 14:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

"Saving Tim Hunt" on medium.com

Thanks for pointing out the medium.com article on the Talk:Tim Hunt page. It's a pity the regular media didn't do a similarly thorough analysis. WP:RS is crucially important, but even so some of its side effects, like keeping what seems to be a highly useful analysis from WP readers, are regrettable. Markus Pössel (talk) 19:22, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The finance industry and college administrations

Jimbo, we have had our differences in the past about income inequality and economic growth, and I understand the attraction that austerity still holds for many unaware of the rearing head of deflation brought about by persistent energy sector cost trends. In the past, you have asked for a conversation about how to best wield the influence and reach of the projects for good. Towards that end, I would like to ask you about four sources. The first two are on the effects of the size of the finance industry[30][31] and the others are on the effects of college administrations on the cost of education.[32][33] Please refer to [34] for context. Do you believe these sources are reliable? If so, what to you propose should be done about the problems they describe? EllenCT (talk) 19:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't believe I have ever expressed a personal opinion to you on income inequality and economic growth. I continue to have only minimal interest in the topic and no real expertise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:38, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

With reference to [35] and that time you found the one trickle down literature review from a Scottish economics journal, opposed to roughly five of the same weight, I suggest that there are clear prescriptions in the sources, and that prescription sections should be added to policy articles. EllenCT (talk) 00:06, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Bomis

Nupedia, an effort at creating an expert-written online encyclopedia, was the base from which Nupedia's Wiki — Wikipedia — was launched. It was a division of Bomis, which was a small internet company which made an effort to launch a commercial webring of sites hosting softcore girlie pictures, or some such. All this is very well known. What I've never seen in the various histories of WP or discussions of the early participants is what exactly "Bomis" signified. Was it a made-up word that sounded cool? An acronym? Fragments of words pasted together for effect? Best I can come up with is the observation that 4 of the 5 letters are shared by the word "Jimbo." Does anyone care to shine any light on this arcane tidbit of Wikipedia history? Carrite (talk) 15:10, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

"Bo" is clearly "Jimbo" and "IS" was a frequent acronym for "Information Service". Best guess barring Jimbo posting a response. Collect (talk) 15:19, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, never mind, I should have checked Wikipedia: "Although Bomis is not an acronym, the name stemmed from "Bitter Old Men in Suits"[60] (as Wales and Shell called themselves in Chicago)." Carrite (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure where that came from, but it isn't 100% accurate. We didn't actually call ourselves that. Tim made a joke once about having a company called "Bitter Old Men in Suits". The way it is written it makes it sound like a nickname we had for ourselves or something.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:29, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Would it be more accurate to say that "Bomis was secretly an acronym for 'Bitter Old Men In Suits,' an inside joke dreamed up by Shell." ? Carrite (talk) 14:25, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

????? Carrite (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Sounds more exciting that way, but really it wasn't something we viewed as a secret acronym. I suppose it started as an acronym in a sense, but mainly it was a pronounceable 5 letter domain name, quite surprising to stumble across even in those days. We learned soon after that there was a band (in Poland, I think) called Bomis Prendin. I can't quite remember but I think they contacted us and thought it was cool that we were called Bomis.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Some help please.

Hello Jimmy Wales, so as I heard you are the creator of Wikipedia so congrats as this is an awesome site. My user name is snake dude as I really love snakes and other reptiles. I have a few question however. I recently created A new article about the Reptile world serpentarium in St. Cloud Florida and I want to know since my article is extremely short how to expand it and how to add images and how to use that big text with the underline. I am very new here so I would appreciate if you give me some help please. Thanks have a good day Jimmy Wales Herpetology (talk) 15:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Hey, sorry the site is so confusing, but there are thousands of people "re-purposing" simple help-pages into bizarreness and stuff gets so wiki-freaked. Anyway, see blurb "wp:Your first article" and for images, see: Wikipedia:Extended image syntax" (sorry the title is so counter-intuitive) but "Help:Images" isn't helpful (if it ever was). The Template:Wikitext shows the markup in condensed form, as below:

The term "wikitext" refers to Wikipedia's wp:wiki markup language. Formats: [[hyperlink]] or [[hyperlink|link here]] or [[expert]]ly    → hyperlink or link here or expertly [http://www.google.com external link]      → external link   (to an outside webpage) [[File:Example.jpg|thumb|55px|Caption]]      →   (shows image, see below) ==Header== → Header        ===Subheader=== → Subheader ''italic''   '''bold'''   '''''bold-italic''''' → italic   bold   bold-italic * bullet → • bullet       (or ":*" or "::*" to indent) Caption : indent →     indent   (or "::" or "::::::" to indent more) # numbered →   1.  numbered   ("#:" indents under numbered lines) #* bullet under number →   °  bullet under number [[Category:xx]] → (internal wp:category link). {{templt|aa|bb}} → (run "Template:Templt" with parameters "aa" & "bb") {{#expr: (5*10 3^2 8)/2 }} → calculate expression: (5×10 32 8)/2 = 33.5 ~~~~ → signature     ~~~~~ → date/time (UTC) A related page is Help:Table.

. Thanks for staying here, and perhaps could help improve the site for new users. -Wikid77 (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

User:Snake dude, your contributions indicate that you've been using the (very limited) visual editor on the mobile website. It's not currently possible to insert images or add section headings with that tool. You either need to switch to the desktop website (en.wikipedia.org rather than en.m.wikipedia.org) or switch to the wikitext editor (click the gear-shaped icon and "Switch to source editing" – if you see the editing toolbar [undo/bold/link/cite], then you might need to click the checkmark/"Done editing" to get back to the gear-shaped settings menu first). Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Snake dude: Your #1 problem right now is that Reptile World Serpentarium is unsourced. To have an article about something, Wikipedia needs WP:reliable sources independent of the site to have written about it, to show that it has "WP:Notability". Right now it reads a lot like someone closely connected with a small business might be trying to promote it on Wikipedia. Even if you are just a fan who visited it and wanted to provide the useful data you saw on-site, that's not actually a guarantee someone isn't going to try to delete the article shortly. Note however that Wikimedia Commons does not have this stipulation; a file like File:Reptile World Serpentarium sign 02.jpg can be relevant there ... unless, that is, someone starts giving you grief about potential copyright on the sign or something... (I have no idea whether there is "freedom of panorama" in Florida, doubt it though. I see someone uploaded this in 2010 but for people to start griping the moment you actually try to use it is par for the course) In short ... Wikipedia can be a pain in the ass. Hang in there, but do read over the voluminous policies. Wnt (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Concerning the dismissal of Doc James from the board

Before anything else let me say that what follows are my inferences from publicly available information. I haven't been given any information that isn't available to everybody who looks for it.

I have been trying to figure out the real reason Doc James was dismissed. I never believed that the Knowledge Engine business was more than a minor factor, and still don't. Instead, based on reading between the lines, I believe what happened is that James tried to intervene in the fraught situation involving the interactions between Lila and the WMF staff, and in the process (a) undercut Lila, (b) undercut decisions made by the board as a whole; (c) gave people information that was intended as confidential; (d) misrepresented the views of some people to other people.

I would like to add that I'm a longtime participant in WikiProject Medicine and continue to support Doc James as leader of the project. I believe he was frustrated by the ongoing damage to Wikipedia and was acting in what he thought were its best interests. I also believe that the decision by the board to extend Lila a second chance after serious failures was a mistake that resulted in exacerbating the damage, so nobody really ends up blameless here. Furthermore the decision to dismiss James from the board without being able to give a specific reason was a huge political error -- the board obviously didn't fully understand the special factors that come into play when you are dealing with people who have been elected rather than appointed.

Even if these conjectures are correct I don't expect you to say so, but perhaps if I have gone down the wrong path you can say that at least.

Looie496 (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Accusing a medical professional of not keeping a confidence is a pretty serious matter, but I'm fairly sure that isn't likely here. I have been watching and trying to understand this saga since the initial sacking of Doc James. I have yet to see anything be disclosed by him that wasn't his to disclose (he was certainly entitled to say that the board had voted him off). If the reason for his removal was something as simple as "this was secret and you made it public" then it wouldn't have been so difficult for the board to have communicated that to him. If it was more that he asked difficult questions in the boardroom and had done his research well enough to know things others didn't and raise things others didn't want raised, then I can understand the difficulty of explaining to him privately or publicly why he was sacked. ϢereSpielChequers 15:07, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if I recall correctly, it was James and only James that revealed that Lila 'got a second chance', and as someone else said on this page, it was probably precisely at that point Lila's employment position became untenable, and she could never survive. Whether James supported that second chance (if it was even put as a second chance at the time) and then decided he did not support it later is all water under the bridge. As is the fact that James did not just support the Knight grant, he moved the board to accept it. So, now he suggests, he did not really support it? What? Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

In a very general way I agree with Looie496, especially that it appears that "James tried to intervene in the fraught situation involving the interactions between Lila and the WMF staff." The rest of what he says overstates a bit what evidence I've seen, but is a reasonable conjecture. Per WereSpielChequers, I'd tone down (c) and (d).

Getting involved in a conflict between the ED and the staff, is a very difficult if not impossible for a board member to do well. It's clear that this didn't work out for James. It's clear that he lost the trust of his fellow board members. It's clear that a full disclosure of Lila's situation/personnel file/disagreements with the staff is not possible.

My only question is, where do we go from here? It appears to me like a couple of people in sections above just want to run Jimmy out of town on a rail with tar and feathers. Forget that noise. There's no justification for it and no possibility of it happening. If that is what folks want, I suggest opening an RFC (somewhere else please) and being completely open about what you want. I'd think you might even get 5-10 supports. There are always a few in any crowd.

Reasonable suggestions for changing the governance system OTOH would be appreciated. If I understand James correctly, he wants the founder's seat on the board to be elected. We could certainly discuss that, get an RFC, and send a formal request to the board. Perhaps a "board of trusted editors" or a "senate" could be formed to review any removals of elected trustees in the future (but they'd need something else to do - I doubt that this situation will repeat itself in the next few decades). We could work on guidelines on how the community could have better input into the plans for new tech projects. There's lots of things that we could do other than fume and sputter and repeat the same old questions on this page. But what do folks want to do that could have a positive impact? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Alanscottwalker: if it was something as simple as James revealing that Lila had 'got a second chance' then it would have been straightforward to tell him, privately or otherwise, that this was the grounds for removal. But I'm not sure who released that information and when, in fact I don't remember hearing it until some time after James had left the board. ϢereSpielChequers 21:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think it did happen until James left the board. But, as I recall it was in a mid-December email (from when James was still on the board) that James then released in late December or early January. It remains that once it was revealed, it was probably over for Lila (there was never a possibility of pulling that back quietly). Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:02, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

You have to be pretty deep into inside baseball to have even noticed that James said 'second chance', and it's hard to believe it had any impact whatsoever. Things were over for Lila when the ~90% lack of staff confidence survey came out (long before the community knew about it), including most if not all the C-level employees. Every month that you survive as a top executive when ~90% of your staff don't have confidence in you is another chance, but it can't go on forever. That kind of number is basically unheard of. Incidentally, I was the initial non-staff person to dig out the mention of the report in one of the published Quarterly Reviews (as I skim through all of them), leading to its disclosure, and I did that with absolutely no help from anyone and only very thin rumors of its existence. There was no interest in the board in disclosing the report to the community, even though prior reports had been disclosed. It's hard to imagine anything that anyone said or did could be as damaging to Lila's position as that factoid. II | (t - c) 04:56, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

No, there was most definitely not any inside baseball knowledge needed to see that James said 'second chance'. But then he was on the board that solely deals with the terms and conditions of Lila's employment, which generally requires confidentiality in perpetuity, not just anyone's opinion. Alanscottwalker (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It's extremely tiresome for people to cite 'the law' without sources. While I'm not a lawyer, I've spent several years as a fiduciary for a couple different organizations, and I am one of the few active long-term editors in the overall theme of fiduciary standards and corporate governance (as well many other areas of law, going back several years; User:Coolcaesar and User:Wikidea are the other ones who work in law a lot). I'd love to see the specific legal basis for many of the statements that get thrown around. I am not aware of a blanket confidentiality law surrounding board meetings. Executive session is strictly confidential, which implies that the rest of the board meeting is not. The general board meeting is confidential by convention, and there is sometimes discussion around the duty of loyalty, but I have yet to see a detailed legal citation on that. We know that this decision to support Lila wasn't secret because it was announced to all the staff after the big November crisis management meeting. Nor am I aware of any laws which disallow a board member from publicly providing their opinion as to how the board acted. There's some debate over whether a board is really allowed to take action in secret. In public deliberative bodies, secret votes are often illegal. For example, recently in Anchorage, a school board had conflicted internal straw polls over retaining the Superintendent and eventually merged into a unanimous decision in public, which is viewed as a violation of the Open Meetings Act. II | (t - c) 15:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Most knowledgeable people in the US are aware of the confidential nature of employment information. For the constitutional right of privacy and "strong public policy" in favor of individual privacy in the California employee's personnel information see generally, Stanford University v Superior Court and for privacy of an individual's employment personnel information, including the performance evaluation by the employer see generally, this article. Privacy of the employee is standard for the employer. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, that is a naive view, but it is better to look at parallel situations such as executives of public agencies. When you take a high-profile position, you do so with the understanding that your performance will be under scrutiny by many stakeholders. In other words, you give up privacy in exchange for wealth and fame; you also give up your right to be sue for defamation (see public figure doctrine). For example, in Oregon, the state Attorney General's office recommends that school superintendent evaluations be released to the public (see page 5 of the Oregon School Board Association Superintendent Evaluation guide June 2014). According to Accessing personnel records: A balancing act between privacy, public’s right to know (2015), in Colorado, New York, North Dakota, and Ohio teacher evaluations are public. Many other states have similar and even broader laws: in Connecticut, performance evaluations of state and municipal employees was/is open to the public according to 2002-R-0324. Lila should have known that a staff survey would be done and released as the others were (sadly, in a shameful display the WMF changed its goalposts by refusing to disclose that bad one until forced). Anyway, this is sort of beside the point other than to illustrate that the naive view of employee privacy is not really realistic. The reality is the context of James's statement: he was defending his character by producing evidence that he was not lying after he was dubiously removed. The 'second chance' thing was tangential, and in any case it's just plain common sense that a chief executive with 90% lack of confidence who is not fired is getting a second chance to turn things around. I don't know what you're trying to accomplish; it appears that you're trying to suggest that James was in the wrong for doing all he could to turn this organization around before we lost even more. It frankly offends me that you would discourage people from doing important, bold actions. I've worked as a software engineer at a company which suddenly lost most of its engineering staff. Picking up the pieces is not good. II | (t - c) 04:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

No. Redaction of personnel information from e-mails is standard practice when e-mails are released. There is no greater good in being sloppy or worse with personnel information. As employer, keeping it in confidence is its own good - it's just the right thing to do. Look what your argument is: someone released personnel information for their own benefit, according to you. No, there is no government public agency involved here (And Board of Trustees of Stanford Univ. v. Superior Court an educational organization with California employees is more on point, regardless - disclosure of personnel information of another not allowed). Your personal history is irrelevant - trying to convince with your personal history is strange and useless (emotional?) argumentation. That you're offended by citations when you asked for them is bizarre, unless what you are offended by is a another view. Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:58, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, my apologies for the overly strong words. Blame it on the alcohol. :) I thought you were the one who was making snarky remarks about how gossipy the Signpost was in covering this topic, but I think I was mistaken. In any case, I'm not at all offended by the citations (quite welcome!) but more by the implication that James was in the wrong, when in fact he was absolutely silent until after he was removed with no explanation, while the organization was left in crisis and the community was left completely in the dark about the dubious actions of their elected representatives. I wonder how you would act in such a situation. As far as your citation, I actually sort of met James back around 2008 when we were both involved in the discussion of medical reliable sources (see for example Archive 2), so I do try to step back from primary sources. While law is sadly lacking in accessible third-party sources, I'm pretty skeptical of a 1981 court case as being the end-all-be-all. If you're citing common law, Restatements of the Law is generally the most authoritative. I've never reviewed it for this topic, although I have for torts as I worked heavily on tort. In any case, yes, I am emotional on this topic. When this crisis erupted, I looked at Glassdoor and found that (if I recall correctly) the executive officer had like a 25% approval rating - lower than anything I'd ever seen before by around 30%. That's really sad, and yes, it makes me emotional. In addition, as can be gathered from the fact that I largely wrote the article on directors and officers liability insurance, I have a personal interest in the topic of board negligence and laziness. Every year in the United States, insurance companies pay about $3b out due to board member negligence, usually attributable to laziness and cowardice. It's worth noting that violating board confidentiality is, as far as I know, not a criminal wrong with the exception of government boards which seem to have laws around executive session (covering both discussing things in secret illegally and illegal disclosure, typically misdemeanor level). In general, as far as I am aware violating bylaws is basically a private wrong against the corporation (i.e., a tort). Quite often, board members are faced with the choice of two bad options: follow the duty of care and go public with corporate mismanagement and face the judgment of fellow board members (and more significantly, long-run reputation costs if you become known as a "Boy Scout" or someone who rocks the boat), or follow the "duty of loyalty" (usually cited for upholding confidentiality) and be a lazy coward and let the corporation cover the costs of the lawsuit when things go wrong, since Smith v. Van Gorkom formally blessed exculpatory clauses such as the one you see in the WMF Bylaws. Mostly, board members choose the latter. With that said, I was a fiduciary of a trust with around $150 million in revenue and $100 million in the bank a few years ago. Around a year prior to my time, a board member was disturbed by some of the practices, tape-recorded board sessions and went public with what the board was doing. She was kicked off and accused of violating confidentiality. The eventual lawsuit around defamation cost about $5 million, with the trust paying for all it all when the jury awarded $500k to the removed board member and assessed punitive damages against the corporation. II | (t - c) 10:34, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

• I agree with Looie496. Doc James is a medical professional, is using his real name, and deserved more respectful treatment. This is separate and apart from the merits of his position. Coretheapple (talk) 17:50, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

This all boils down to a personality conflict, I think. I suggested a family counselor as the best path to patch things up, but nobody seems interested in moving forward, just rehashing what already happened. The family aka marriage counselor is a damn good idea because the underlying issues here are emotional and personality based, for sure. Hire a good counselor and the whole thing can become a great personal growth event for all concerned. Nocturnalnow (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

No, this is the kind of bullshit that happens on co-op boards, the boards of garden clubs, neighborhood associations, and so on. It can get nasty. What I don't like is how Doc James, whether he's right or wrong being a side issue, has gotten kind of smeared under his real name. He's been subject to "hard ball." I don't care what people say about Cortheapple because Core Theodore Apple is not my real name. But James is his real name. I don't like to see his integrity impeached as it has. Coretheapple (talk) 15:32, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

And that is why there are some things that should be and in some cases need to be private. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. I was referring to comments I saw early in the dispute. Coretheapple (talk) 15:57, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Understood. Silence is hard, sometimes, but it is often essential. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:12, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I think, maybe, Coretheapple and Alanscottwalker are seventeen years behind the time. All of us are easily identified by our real names if anyone with any skills wants to go to the trouble. Doc James is likely only different from you, in that respect, because he realizes it. If that is your issue, that he uses his real name, then that is a classic non-issue. I also think the comments made by some of the people close to the action, re: the Doc James matter, are showing emotional feelings which are obvious to me. Its just silly to pretend that an issue like this absolutely would not benefit from tried and true professional counseling. It is sadly reminiscent of when mental illness was dealt with as something to be ashamed of and kept secret. You can't have your cake and eat it too; on the one hand use interpersonal terms like "community" and "movement" while dismissing the existence of normal and typical interpersonal subjective conflicts (some of which may be not definable in objective or sequential terminology), and the resolution tools which have proven successful for dealing with such conflicts, as "garden club" issues. This is 2016, all tools, including interpersonal conflict counseling, should be considered within any organization aka .org, which is modern and not ego driven. Nocturnalnow (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

But it's not just egos that are at stake. Look, I have a simple view of the situation. I tend to believe that the KE is a fairly benign operation and I tend to sympathize with the way the WMF has handled it. I don't see anything evil or terrible in how it was handled. So therefore I tend to disagree with Doc James on the merits. However, I disagree with the other side in how Doc James was treated. The fact that he uses his real name makes matters worse. I don't believe counseling would help matters much as there are serious issues raised, which is why Jimbo has addressed this subject rather carefully and isn't ignoring it as he sometimes does. Coretheapple (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• the conversation above seems to have a misunderstanding in it. Look at Molly's timeline here. When Jimmy and Patricio and Lila called a WMF staff meeting in November, it was said then - in front of the whole WMF staff, that the board was giving Lila a second chance with the board's "full support". It was not some secret thing. It was followed by an email from Patricio where he referenced the board's "unanimous support", as again noted in the timeline here The issue for James were those references to the board's "full support" and "unanimous" support. I know James expressed that dissent in Feb 2016 on the mailing list; its not clear to me if/when he said that publicly before then. Jytdog (talk) 06:18, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Your pointing to rumor from an in-house staff meeting and undisclosed board proceedings, actually addresses nothing said here. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

That's your deal if you think Molly is just rumor-mongering. You can take that up with her. Jytdog (talk) 20:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

There is a very valuable concept in productive working relations called "disagree and commit" - the idea is that in many cases, it is valuable when on the losing side of a vote to nonetheless commit to supporting the outcome. There are cases, of course, where someone really can't do that. Let me give a hypothetical - completely made up for the purposes of this discussion. I'm on the board of the Guardian Media Group (publisher of the Guardian newspaper and website). There are many particular decisions that might be made about spending priorities, etc., where a choice could be made that I disagree with. But in most cases, if I'm on the losing side of a vote, I'd still agree to commit to support the decision of the board - this would be a recognition of the right of the entire board as a group to make the decision, and a desire not to elevate my own opinion on an issue above that of the importance of the principle of majority voting on the board. But imagine if, for example, (crazy hypothetical) the board - which is not supposed to interfere in any way with editorial decisions and indeed by structure is basically unable to do so - tried to use board power over the budget to force the editor to endorse Donald Trump for the US Presidency. This would violate my conscience on multiple levels, and I wouldn't agree to "disagree and commit" - I'd resign from the board in public protest if my side lost that vote.

In any event, Patricio's comment was accurate, and based on a specific conversation with James with his explicit agreement, in front of (as I recall) the entire board.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes and we "disagreed and committed" in November. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:38, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Real financial liability is mostly nonexistent as a board member as I mentioned above (see Smith v. Van Gorkom, corporate indemnification agreements, D&O insurance, etc). There are likely some people) who would say that a director's duty of care prevents them from resigning when they could influence the situation for the better. But it really comes down to one's goals as a person and personal sense of duty rather than a formal "duty of care". If you're joining boards because you genuinely want to them more effective, then you should stick around and do whatever it takes to turn things around rather, forcing them to fire you, rather than resigning. Perhaps even to the extent of going public about something that other people don't want to be known. As far as the situation with James, we don't know whether James was not "committing to the plan", but we do know is that he seems to have absolutely upheld with implicit omerta about the situation (i.e., silence to community until he was forcibly removed). That suggests he was playing along with you guys in a pretty significant way, as I can't imagine many community member elected Trustees would have been terribly comfortable staying silent about the events with the peers who placed their trust in him. Perhaps he commiserated with staff, but with a number like 90% lack of confidence, it's hard to believe any board member didn't. Discussions as to why to keep the employee survey and the search development plan private have been hashed over and over, so I won't repeat them. We're probably at a point right now we we should all just disagree and commit to the future, except that we have a few asks such as why James was removed. Once we understand that, we can try to forgive and forget. Also, I really don't like how harsh a lot of these comments are on Jimmy, as I appreciate that he responds and dedicates his time to this place. Most likely we're all going to be interacting with each other to some degree for a few decades longer so we should try not to hold grudges. II | (t - c) 03:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy I like what you said here about "disagree and commit", 100%. A company moves as one. That is indeed the way to operate, generally. I guess it is one thing to say "Lila has the board's support; we are giving her the chance to turn this around" and another to talk about "full support" and "unanimous support", especially in the context of the company that is WMF. I would call that a tactical blunder that a) was unnecessary detail; b) made the board appear completely out of touch with the WMF staff and probably contributed to the negative staff reaction and untenability of Lila's position; and c) dishonored the board members who "disagreed and committed". It just wasn't necessary.

Picking up on what Coretheapple said above, the hardball tactics that have been deployed publicly and that i understand were also deployed privately, might be fine at companies like Google or the Guardian, but not at the WMF. I and others remain very unhappy about that stuff. It is not about kumbayah but it is about an expectation of decency and respect for difference that this place is built on. Jytdog (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The real problem is that it was a bad decision. If Lila had succeeded in turning things around so that the WMF was clearly moving forward and most people were enthusiastic about the leadership, none of this angst and backbiting would be happening. "Disagree and commit" is great when it is used to back up a good decision, but when the decision goes wrong it is very difficult for the people who disagreed to keep quiet -- even if theoretically they ought to. Looie496 (talk) 14:28, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the premise that "disagree and commit" is a very valuable concept in productive working relations. I agree that it is a common and generally accepted narrative among boards of directors and other managerial groups that it is "valuable when on the losing side of a vote to nonetheless commit to supporting the outcome", but I think the concept is out dated, old fashioned and fails critical thinking analysis. And it naturally flows into the further assumption that the one(s) who disagree should keep quiet about their disagreement because commitment and disagreement to the same thing seems to be an untenable position. Actually the "disagree and commit" concept is Doublethink at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. Its just a type of forced compliance and phony behavior which is still in fashion but impedes maximum advancement. Yes, it makes things easier for the board members who are in the majority, but that's about all it accomplishes, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:45, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

People who revert for no reason are destroying Wikipedia

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Dear Jimmy,

Often, when reading articles, I spot examples of bad writing, which I always try to correct. This is because I like the idea of building a very high quality freely available encyclopaedia. It is becoming abundantly clear that, among registered users, the point of Wikipedia is that it is a game, in which they pretend to be powerful, and seek not to build a high quality encyclopaedia but simply to attack other people. Here is the latest example. A couple of days ago I spotted the following errors, and corrected them.

1. In Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem, the text "Fermat himself famously claimed..." appeared. Anything and everything can be described as famous. It's entirely subjective and adds nothing of value. This is well described in WP:PEACOCK, and WP:ASSERT. So I removed the word "famously".[36]
2. In Chonosuke Okamura, I found that he was described as "noted for his pseudoscientific claim", which is vague, subjective, verbose and unverifiable. Why bother saying "X was noted for being Y" when you can just say "X was Y"? Again, WP:PEACOCK applies. So I changed the text to remove this claim and make the writing clearer.[37]
3. In Ig Nobel Prize, I found entirely unnecessary brackets, and a patronising definition of a common word that all readers would know. So I removed them. [38]
4. In Pareidolia, I found more peacock words - a section entitled "Famous examples", with one example itself also specifically designated "famous". So I removed the peacock words. [39]
5. In Encarta, I found a reference placed at a position in the sentence that made no sense. So I moved it to a more logical place. [40]

Now, all these edits were clearly necessary, I clearly described why in my edit summaries, and my work clearly improved the articles. So what happened? I expected indifference. These are small changes. But actually, every one of these edits was reverted, in its entirety. Why on earth would someone do that? Well, let's see what edit summaries they left with their initial reverts, for the five articles in the order I listed them.

1. "Not npov at all. Well known"
2. "Failure to cite a reliable source"
3. "Unexplained removal of content"
4. "Failure to cite a reliable source"
5. "Failure to cite a reliable source"

The first at least makes an attempt to justify itself, though the user was obviously wrong. Either we allow anyone to describe anything they particularly like as "famous", in the voice of the encyclopaedia, or we do not, and the very clear consensus since the very beginning of Wikipedia has been the latter. The others were simply nonsense. I conclude that they were made simply to make the users feel important, and to annoy me.

Naturally, I re-reverted these reverts, all of which were made in contravention of core policies, and of guidelines like WP:ONLYREVERT, WP:NPA, WP:REVEXP. Naturally, this triggered attacks from people who are here to attack people and not to build an encyclopaedia. User:DVdm began leaving inane templates on my talk page falsely accusing me of not explaining my edits. After the first of these I instructed the user not to post on my talk page. Of course, they were enjoying their rudeness much too much, and left a new personal attack each time I removed their previous one. Looking at this user's contributions, you can see that they basically only edit wikipedia to revert people, and to leave templates on their talk pages.

In the course of their attacks, they violated the 3RR on Wiles' proof of Fermat's Last Theorem. This supposed "bright line rule" does not, in fact, apply in practice to people who revert anonymous edits, no matter how blatantly pointless and disruptive their edit warring. But before I could even report it, someone had blocked me, because User:DVdm had made a flagrantly false claim of vandalism against me.[41] Of course, the blocker did not for a second consider that finding 100% of my edits reverted for no reason was something that would annoy anyone, and the correct course of action if one wants an encyclopaedia to be built would be to warn and then block anyone who reverts for no reason, and to rapidly block anyone who makes false claims of vandalism in an attempt to smear another user.

Having written up the 3RR report but been prevented from posting it, I put it on my talk page instead, where the edit warrior himself turned up to remove it, in contravention of WP:TPO. Of course, no-one acted on it; the edit warrior's behaviour has been endorsed and encouraged, as it always is in these circumstances. Indeed, far from acting on the report, another adminstrator extended the block making the false claim of "attack from other IP".

So, there you have it, five good edits reverted for no reason, the user making them attacked and blocked, and the users reverting them patted on the back and given a house point.

Do you think this is an example of Wikipedia working well? If not, what do you plan to do about it? 2001:4C50:19F:9C00:4157:429C:9508:5045 (talk) 12:04, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

My guess you were blocked for posting edit summaries like unexplained, bullshit. read the edit summary and grow up and grow up, learn to read, learn basic policies, and stop being a dicl. Nyth63 12:37, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Here's where it all goes wrong: "Naturally, I re-reverted . . .". Re-reverting is rarely the right thing to do when a conflict arises; see WP:BRD. The right thing is to start a discussion on the talk page. Re-reverting almost inevitably leads to edit wars and bad consequences. My personal policy for many years has been never to re-revert without explicit support from other editors. Looie496 (talk) 14:19, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

"Now, all these edits were clearly necessary." Clearly not everyone agrees. --JBL (talk) 23:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An Accusation You Might Want to Clear Up

Just spotted on a fairly high profile twitter account: https://twitter.com/ProstitutionRes/status/711973471639633920

This kind of nonsense has a habit of taking hold if left unchecked, up to you whether you want to check it. But you can't decide until you know it exists. :o) 109.76.228.229 (talk) 21:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Ugh. Not this again. Accusations that Wales' involvement with Bomis constituted him being a "pornographer" are almost as old as WP itself. E.g. "In 2005, Wales objected on his Wikipedia page to an entry that said Bomis peddled porn. “The mature audience [NOT pornography] portion of the business is significantly less than 10 percent of total revenues,” he told the community." [42] Everymorning (talk) 01:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Trollery. Carrite (talk) 11:48, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• Fairly high profile Twitter account? Not from where I'm standing. This has all been discussed umpteen times before.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:59, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
• I should be so exciting. I fear that I'm not really.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 17:34, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The Twitter comment is "Twitter [That too, but I mean:] Wikipedia is owned and run by a pornographer." (Why can't people quote a 140-character piece of text when they post, rather than giving us a link to somebody's stream of consciousness that will scroll it right off the bottom tomorrow?) Technically, this is true, as Wikipedia contains pornography, such as in articles about pornography, and so whoever owns it (the Board?) could all be described as "pornographers". We should be proud of this, and discard the needlessly ad-hominemized arguments of those who object to that as hopelessly irrational. Note that with this kind of bullying, no amount of compliance will suffice - it doesn't matter if only 50% or only 10% or only 0.001% of your revenue is pornography, they can still pull out some image and put a black bar over it and say "See, a pornographer!". Bullies are bullies - it's what they do. Wnt (talk) 20:14, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo is not on the ballot in Arizona today. Count Iblis (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh noes! If porn ever becomes freely available for nothing then Wikipedia will die due to lack of money! Oh, wait... Guy (Help!) 23:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is Wikipedia getting better? Part 2.5

Jimmy, Back in Sept 2015 Bob K31416 asked the question “Is Wikipedia getting better? on this page. I’ve been investigating this question (but no, it’s not a scholarly work) and have gotten to the point where I think even Bob would be hard pressed to say “No, it doesn’t look like there’s any evidence that Wikipedia is gradually improving.”

A quick review.

• At User:Smallbones/Article quality prelim I outlined the basic method and examined a sample of 100 articles. The results suggested that old articles are getting better and that newly created articles raise the overall quality as well.
• At User:Smallbones/1000 random results I classified 1000 random articles in 18 categories and sub-categories, and compared how the quality of 27 pairs of male and female biographies changed over time. Over 5 years the size (in bytes) of the average article more than doubled for both male and female bios. Using a modified ORES quality measure, both male and female bios increased appreciably in average quality level over 5 years, with about half of all bios increasing by at least 1 quality level.

The main purpose of User:Smallbones/1000 random results was to gather data that could be used for other investigations of quality improvement. Alanscottwalker and Dr Blofeld said that they were interested in how the quality of vital articles changes over time. I used the modified ORES quality measure here exclusively.

Article quality improvement for ten Level 1 Vital articles, ten Level 4 Vital articles, and ten randomly selected articles. Note that most articles were first edited in 2001, but others were started as late as 2004. There is a 5-8 year break between the 3rd year and 2011.

The results are shown in the graph on the right and in User:Smallbones/vital articles#Discussion. It should be noted that the vital articles almost all were created in 2001-2002, and the random non-vital articles were also selected for a very early date of creation. (Reviewing the dataset might be a real blast from the past for some editors!) It’s clear that the vital articles increase in quality fairly quickly in the beginning, and on average reach a level approximating GA or even FA after about 10 years. The non-vital articles increase in quality much more slowly, until they reach an average level of approximately Start after almost 10 years. For the last 5 years they increase in quality at about twice the rate, ending, on average, above a C level. The question is not really “does article quality increase?” but “is article quality increasing fast enough?”

So overall, 5 sets of articles (male and female bios, 2 levels of vital articles, and random non-vital articles) show definite increases in quality over time. Bob K31416, are you convinced yet?

Categories of articles on RuWiki based on a random sample of 1450 articles

Obviously there is room for improvement in the analysis. I’m definitely interested in what types of articles other editors are interested in, and whether these show measurable quality improvements. I’m also interested in getting other editors to help with some of the data collection. My next investigation will likely be on how quality improvement has changed over time for articles of the same age, and nailing down whether newly created articles increase the average overall quality each year.

Regarding getting help from other editors, MaxBioHazard over at RuWiki took up my challenge to gather and classify random Russian articles. I haven’t had time to look at his classification in any detail, and the classification scheme is different from the one I used, but you can compare my results at File:Size of English Wikipedia (1000 vol).svg with his on the right. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. It is appreciated. Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

One thing I left off here. I think the vital articles still have much room for improvement, which really doesn't show on the graph. The machine grading from ORES is probably not that well optimized for the rather rare GA and FA articles. It's probably also too much to expect from machine grading to adequately grade such important articles. Ultimately, it just shows attributes that are easily measured, rather than the fine points humans would be looking at for these articles. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 21:37, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: which ten Vital-L1 articles declined the most from 2013 to 2015 on the top right of your article quality improvement graph, and by how much did each of those ten? EllenCT (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

EllenCT - just a quick review of the data says that Culture went down in the last 2 years. The arts had gone down much earlier and stayed there. All the other Level-1 Vital articles articles had the top mORES rating in the last few years. From just a quick glance at the articles as I was gathering the data both Culture and The arts struck me as being a bit different from the other Vital-1 articles. I think editors may have redefined the subject matter of these two as they went along. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: very interesting. Thank you. I think the overall trend is quite clear and should put a lot of critics' fears to rest. But let me ask you this: With reference to [43] do you think we should be using the Vital article lists, or the most popular articles within certain vital categories for these kinds of analyses? EllenCT (talk) 03:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your interest. This little hobby of mine is still developing and I hope editors will come to me and ask interesting questions that can be addressed with these methods. The methods need to be developed and checked as well - so I certainly don't have all the answers (yet) or even all the right questions. This particular question "which articles are most important" is pretty much one of individual preference, the editors' consensus "vital articles" or the "readers' consensus" most viewed articles? Eventually, I hope to examine both. I hope to have something on most viewed articles by the end of summer, but I'm struggling with what kind of "most viewed" are important. e.g. if it's just most viewed for a couple of weeks, or for the whole year. Should I leave out TV shows and computer games? Let me know what you think is the most important. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:52, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed comment by banned troll - there's no point in discussing anything with somebody who will deliberately mischaracterize things. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No, not directly, but there is a correlation which varies with time. Did you research the quality scale on the y-axis of the graph? EllenCT (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Removed comment by banned troll Smallbones_(smalltalk) 18:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

That depends on the statistical sense in which you mean "only slightly." And are you sure that the assessment scales played no part, even if only because of the correlations of the regression of the two variables to which you refer? Instead of trying to find fault, please suggest improvements. I can think of some very specific reasons why articles on the arts and culture would have declined in quality, having to do with the behavior and citizenship of large corporations. 174.29.40.217 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you think the extent to which article popularity within (narrow?) categories correlates with the vital article list could be a measure of vital article list quality? 174.29.40.217 (talk) 17:14, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Problems with Angolan editors adding piracy links

Motherboard reports "Wikimedia and Facebook have given Angolans free access to their websites, but not to the rest of the internet. So, naturally, Angolans have started hiding pirated movies and music in Wikipedia articles and linking to them on closed Facebook groups, creating a totally free and clandestine file sharing network in a country where mobile internet data is extremely expensive." The program they're referring to regarding Wikipedia is Wikipedia Zero. I was curious whether you, Mr. Wales, had any idea as to how to stop these editors from adding links to websites hosting pirated content to WP, given that the same article claims that "no one knows what to do about it." [44] Everymorning (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Is this actually a problem? Readers who can't afford internet access in no position to be buying movies, so the loss to the copyright owners must be miniscule. If not, the owners could always go on these networks and see what the links are and issue their DMCA notices; the law makes hunting for pirated content their job, not Wikipedia's. Clearly WP is an innocent party in this. There must be some cost in terms of wasted server space, but on the plus side... it makes a big group of readers find out what Wikipedia is. Wnt (talk) 02:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is a problem, because these users aren't uploading links, they're actually uploading complete music files, videos etc. to Wikipedia (pt.wiki, test.wiki and Commons) and then linking them on the Facebook groups. Any DMCA notices would end up at the WMF, no-one else, because they're hosting them. Commons has already softblocked pretty much the whole of Angola (plus a whole load of registered users) and the inevitable endgame will be hardblocking the entire country and then granting ipblock-exempt to good-faith users. Not exactly what Wikipedia Zero was meant to achieve, but if you give free Internet access to one website (well, two with Facebook) in a country where data costs are prohibitive for most of the populace (movies and music are generally distributed by USB stick), what exactly did the WMF expect? 86.139.155.61 (talk) 13:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

"The loss must be minuscule" is an argument which will fail in any court. If Wikipedia has been apprised of a copyright problem, then Wikipedia is obligated to follow the law. Wikipedia can not make the Torrent excuse "but it was not clearly labelled as a copyright infringing file when it was uploaded" - if people know or suspect copyright violations then those who uploaded such substantive violations ought to be blocked, and all such additions removed as soon as they are found. This is not "accidental plagiarism" but becomes a willful misuse of WMF resources, and violation of international law. So yes - it is actually a problem. Collect (talk) 14:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

People have been uploading copyright violations to Wikipedia since day one. Wikipedia has been taking down such content as demanded ever since. However, for people in First World countries, the value of their edits is ranked above the risk of illicit uploads. Why is that not the case when you bring Angola online? I am sorely tempted to write up an overall explanation at WP:WOG or something, explaining why a drinking fountain in London is more notable than a village in Pakistan, that Third World media are inherently unreliable sources, and explaining that child races can't expect to be allowed to edit an encyclopedia. But even my capacious resources of sarcasm and sardony would likely run out before I completed the task. So I'll just say straight that while Wikipedia is supposed to act when it is apprised of a copyright violation, Angola is not a copyright violation, and blocking Angola is not a required action to avoid legal liability under (of all things) the Communications Decency Act. Wnt (talk) 17:25, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Even in the wild-west days of early Wikipedia, the number of copyvios from First World countries never outnumbered the good uploads (came close, though), and even those were generally uploaded in good faith ("I think this article needs a picture, so I'll grab something off Google Search"). The Angola case, however, has copyvios significantly outnumbering good uploads. Further, the uploads are not intended to be used as educational content; rather, Commons and Testwiki are being used as file-sharing sites to distribute pirated music and video between people who do not otherwise participate on WMF projects. --Carnildo (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

@Carnildo: The page linked above links to what looks like some impressive collections of sock puppets, but still, it seems like too short a list of names to outcontribute an entire country. Do you have a way to look at all the contributions from Angola to back up your claim that most are copyvios? Of course, with Testwiki per se almost no one contributes so it is easy for illicit uploads to outweigh others on that particular branch; as an administrative measure, since we don't really direct newbies to try out things on testwiki anyway, maybe you could restrict it to confirmed users. There are sandboxes enough already. Wnt (talk) 11:28, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

TPO and Wikipedia linkage

Jimmy, a couple of years back (at DLD14) you publicly said, "Just as Wikipedia grew virally as communities wanted to work together to liberate knowledge, so I believe TPO will grow in a similar way as communities work together to support good causes across the globe." Do you still feel the same way about TPO, considering that investors have sent the message that the company is worth only 1/10th of what FinnCap had predicted it was going to be worth? If you still feel the same way about TPO as you did in early 2014, how would you describe the investment community's decision to liquidate holdings? Are you right, and they're wrong? - 2001:558:1400:10:317E:FB50:3910:3139 (talk) 17:47, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The employment of the naked Australian painter with the pink hat was a much more entertaining troll... Carrite (talk) 18:01, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

It's somebody with a 2001 IP address who has an obsession with the finer details of what Jimbo has said and done in the past. Draw your own conclusions here.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:03, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

User:ianmacm, please assume good faith. It's a legitimate question for the founder of the Wikimedia Foundation, when he publicly invokes the Wikipedia brand to raise ₤20 million in private capital for the company that pays him $400,000 per year, and then that company loses 75% of its market capitalization within 18 months. Wales is free to not respond, or to delete the question, but it's not very kind for you to claim that another user here has "an obsession". - 2001:558:1400:10:289E:19B2:D0F4:660 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Since it is obvious who this is and I am bound by the rules of WP:OUTING, it is a pity that this user is not saying who he/she is. Maybe it is not an obsession, but random IPs don't usually have this level of interest in Jimbo's affairs. Why not say who you are?--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 17:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe the accepted nickname is 'Mr 2001'. Of course, other people could figure out how to post as an Ipv6 ip address, and by design there are zillions of them. But it's safe enough to assume, quack quack. As TPO is now in a quiet period before our next release of numbers, I can't really comment about that topic.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:35, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This should make you proud....

Have you seen this? [45] ...and I quote, The idea is to effectively encapsulate the internet for consumers beyond the range of the net. Each unit comes pre-loaded with a full encyclopedia, recipes, educational lectures and health information. "The single most popular application is Wikipedia," he said. "We are planning on adding software with a focus on farming; in many places people are cash poor but that doesn't mean they don't have assets." Atsme^📞📧 10:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

If you build it they will come, read and learn

Sharing Wikipedia with 5 billion more people who have limited access to computers. This spread of knowledge has been an ultimate dream of scholars, even back to Cleopatra VII, who spoke "27" languages to at least greet many people in their own languages, while asking her astronomer, Sosigenes to improve the older Roman calendar to become the Julian Calendar with leap years. We even found Galileo smuggling chapters of his physics book(s) out from house arrest, translated from Church Latin into Italian for the "common people" to read and promote the spread of knowledge, including the theory of simple relativity, to become the "Father of Modern Physics". Keep up the good work. -Wikid77 (talk) 20:56, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

How's Romania?

Apparently you're in Romania for the first time. [46] Any particular reason you chose to go to that country specifically? Everymorning (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Odds are that he was asked. Romania has a very interesting history and language, and is certainly a valid place to visit in any event. Any actual reason for seeking more information than that? Collect (talk) 15:50, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I was not implying anything improper about the question whatsoever - just noting that Romania is as valid a place for a person to go as, say, Alberta. So, dearest 2001, as the sun sets over the Adriatic, we bid Romania a fond Adieu. Collect (talk) 17:43, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

• Cold and humid: Raining tonight, with cold temperature 43 °F (6 °C). See Google Search: weather Bucharest, for the current conditions. -Wikid77 (talk) 18:56, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

I was invited. I had never been. So I said yes. I did a press conference and 4 speaking events in the same day, so I didn't actually get a chance to do any tourism, which is a same. Many of the people I met said that the thing to do there is head to the countryside of Transylvania.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:32, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

This was on NPR's Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me today. EllenCT (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

What James said publicly

Hi Jimmy. According to this, you wrote to James that "I'm not going to dig up the exact quotes, you said publicly that you wrote to me in October that we were building a Google-competing search engine and that I more or less said that I'm fine with it". My emphasis. That said, do you have the exact quotes? I can't find anywhere where James said this. Thanks Peter Damian (talk) 18:05, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

---

You are suggesting James is either a liar, or has 'poor memory or low emotional intelligence', or that 'emotional trauma' has coloured his perceptions on certain details. This is a serious thing (and nasty) to say about a man whose integrity and honesty is so far not in doubt. I have searched for evidence of what you claim James said publicly, and I can find nothing. There is something I copied here, but the first reference to 'Google like search engine' is in fact yours. Then James suggested someone should verify that WMF has a group of staff that want to work on a Google-like search engine. 'Verify' /= 'claim'. So where, according to you, did James make this public statement? You can't say mean things like this without digging up the exact quotes. Peter Damian (talk) 19:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

I've been getting some pings about this, which had to do with a statement of mine, so I think I should clarify: I made a comment suggesting a "Google-like" search engine based on this Signpost article and some other source which had mentioned an attempt to make a search engine at Bomis, which apparently predates February 15 when User:Jytdog referred to it. This was only my take on some unclear things I'd read. After which Jimbo responded that it was never intended to be Google-like, and James Heilman made a purely hypothetical response to a scenario I'd raised. The original quote by User:Doc James did not say "Google-like", but was persuasive, because it was a quote: he noted a February 11 document said that "Knowledge Engine by Wikipedia will be the Internet's first transparent search engine, and the first one originated by the Wikimedia Foundation", citing the document.

I think the main point here is that we all need to take a chill pill. Every person coming to this and seeing statements that are frustratingly vague is a) getting frustrated, and b) reading things into what is said that are not quite true. The statements are apparently vague on purpose - User:Wbm1058 suggested there is a reason for this shortly after the quote Doc James provided in the archived discussion, and in any case I still don't know what KE really is. If we can't solve that, at least we can try to resist getting quite so frustrated. This is all blind men and the elephant, and we should consider it most likely that each person involved is not lying, not crazy, just behaving in the way that makes the most sense based on what they know. Wnt (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

it would be nice if this were an "elephant" story but there are directly contradictory statements. Just in that thread you linked to, we have James saying here that "The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board." And Jimmy said here that there were absolutely no such threats. These kinds of contradictions are not resolve-able with the "different parts of the elephant" hypothesis. Believe me, I tried. Jytdog (talk) 20:48, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Related: User talk:Doc James#What you said publicly. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog: Actually, in that link Jimbo said that if anyone on the board made such a threat he'd be astonished, and encouraged Doc James to specify who said what when. This is not really a direct contradiction until the two have narrowed it down to a solid disagreement about a specific conversation at a specific time. Wnt (talk) 03:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

from the dif: Absolutely not. The very idea is ridiculous. Based on everything that I have seen from the rest of the board, this is a complete impossibility. I am specifically checking with every board member to try to get some idea of what, if anything at all, this accusation could be based on, and I have so far come to a preliminary conclusion that it is a flat out lie. If I do find out that any board member made such a threat, I will be astonished. and it goes on. Jytdog (talk) 03:33, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Earlier today Guy Macon asked James: "...Doc James, when you say 'pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the board' was this pressure applied in front of the entire board? Was it clear or ambiguous? Was Jimbo there? Does any other board member collaborate this claim?". James's reply: Yes Jimbo was there. And it was clear. I would imagine other board members would confirm this. (NB spelling error corrected "their" >> "there"). Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

This is not an "elephants" story. That is a hope I had too. But it is not possible. Which is why I have been saying that for anybody who is paying attention, the contradictions are unbearable. And this is not the only example. Jytdog (talk) 04:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

From my perspective, the longer Jimmy keeps digging, the worse this is going to get for him, and for the movement. Which is the real tragedy. My hope is that he pivots, and hard. Jytdog (talk) 04:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

What digging? Have you found even one person to back up the idea that James was threatened with removal from the board if he didn't support the Knight grant? I haven't, and I've asked around. If someone on the board has backed it up, I'm very interested to hear the story. I think the evidence so far is very much on my side. As I have said all along, "If I do find out that any board member made such a threat, I will be astonished." I have seen nothing to change my mind about that. Have you seen anything?--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Lets look at my statement "following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board"[47]. This does not mean the same thing as "James was threatened with removal from the board if he didn't support the Knight grant". What my statement means is that there were comments by a board member to remove other board member(s) before the vote, nothing more. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:34, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm. Your full statement was "The board approved the Knight Foundation grant. I supported its approval following pressure which included comments about potentially removing members of the Board.". That is somewhat closer to "James was threatened with removal from the board if he didn't support the Knight grant". The word 'following' is causal, not temporal. Peter Damian (talk) 21:00, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I meant it to mean that the statement regarding possible removal occurred before the KF vote not that the statement necessarily occurred in a conversation directly about the KF vote.

I do believe that the conversation in which it occurred related somewhat to the KF grant but I understand that others may parse the relatedness of the conversations differently.

Apologies if I was unclear. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:32, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, since there are no foxholes in which to seek cover here on Jimbo's TP, I've adorned myself in flame-retardant underwear in order to say what needs to be said. This entire thread should be put to bed for a number of reasons beginning with the fact that it has become unbearable and unproductive. While it may have started out with the best intentions, it has escalated dangerously close to the point of no return. I don't think I'm alone, but I can no longer bear to see Doc James in the position of having to continuously defend himself against miscommunications. He is a highly respected contributor both on and off WP - he is an ER surgeon for Pete's sake - and should not have to be subjected to this onslaught. I feel similar to the way Jimbo Wales is being treated, having been forced to defend himself against miscommunications. He is one of the founders of WP, and yes, that means a lot whether some of you care to admit it or not. It would be extremely difficult to convince me that Jimbo has done anything that could be considered intentionally detrimental to the project - stupid maybe but certainly not intentional. His rug burns are bleeding from calling him on the carpet dragging him onto the carpet to explain what he's already explained repeatedly. This may come as a surprise to many, but I also don't want to see Jytdog attacked for his initial concerns over the dismissal of Doc James. I know his bulldog tenacity and while we can all admire him for it, we also need to protect him from it. I can only hope that he now realizes his persistence in this matter cannot possibly bring a positive result. I see bridges being burned, and that is not a good thing. Please, please, please - can we stop the onslaught if for no other reason than for the sake of maintaining respectability for those involved? It has long since devolved into torturous dialogue, and this is not where Doc James, Jimbo or Jytdog need to be investing their time. Atsme^📞📧 00:23, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog, if this is a he said, he said, you may never get to the bottom of it, but that does not mean you should stop seeking reality. I somehow don't see Jimbo pivoting...Southerners like to dig..:), and are beyond stubborn. Its entirely up to you, but if it was me and I could not let it go, I'd use the Thought experiment process to figure out what happened. That may work better than trying to "dig" relevant info from the combatants. Nocturnalnow (talk) 06:06, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I still want an answer to the question "Does any other board member corroborate this claim?" Doc James say that an unambiguous statement was made in front of the entire board including Jimbo Wales. Jimbo says it never happened. What do the eyewitnesses say? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:46, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Really? Answer A would mean board members were threatened and acquiesced. Answer B would mean it didn't happen. Acquiescence is not compatible with giving Answer A, and answer B would be silence as there is nothing to witness. I wouldn't expect any verbal/written answer but people tend to vote with their feet in cases like this. (p.s. I corrected a typo in your bolded area) --DHeyward (talk) 09:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Guy Macon that seeking info from other board members/eyewitnesses is the logical next step. One or more of them might feel an obligation to help those who are interested in getting to the bottom of what happened. There is nothing to lose by trying to get them to speak up or at least answer some questions. Even if they all clam up/stonewall, even that will provide an additional piece of reality for acceptance and/or possible reaction. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

"Answer B would be silence as there is nothing to witness" doesn't make any sense. If someone claimed that Jimbo climbed the Reichstag dressed as Spider-Man and that he did it right in front of me, my answer would not be be "silence as there is nothing to witness". My answer would be that I never saw it happen and that the claim that it happened right in front of me was false. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I Agree with Guy Macon re:Answer B. So one or more of the trustees need to help get the record straight. This matter seems too important to too many people to walk away from. If the trustees do not come forward, maybe a time deadline has to be set, then there are several other approaches I can think of at the moment; which have already been mentioned I think. The main thing I think is to try to get to the information in as non-judgmental way as possible. It may even be possible to get at the details without identifying the names of the individuals who did or said whatever. The first approach we could try is to bring in a professional counselor to speak to the parties separately, gather the details from all perspectives, boil down the events which the parties agree happened, come up with a description of the events which is agreeable to all parties and share that description, perhaps in confidence or perhaps not, with whomever wants to know the description of events. The sharing of the description might or might not be limited in some way, perhaps by email...I'm just thinking out loud here...or made public...these parameters could be set by the parties perhaps. Don't laugh, but I think an experienced family counselor might be able to work with the parties and help them sort this all out in a way that will bring a healthy, constructive and positive conclusion to this matter which all concerned, including the people talking here, will be happy with. Nocturnalnow (talk) 05:36, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jytdog:

It looks like you are accusing Jimbo of something but not quite saying what it is. Your technique looks like a combination of tabloid journalism, McCarthyism, and schoolyard bullying. If you have an actual accusation to make, you should make it clearly, with evidence to back it up. Otherwise you should apologize. Please note that WP:No personal attacks says:

"Derogatory comments about other editors may be removed by any editor. Repeated or egregious personal attacks may lead to sanctions including blocks. ....

"What is considered to be a personal attack? ....

• "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence. Evidence often takes the form of diffs and links presented on wiki."

So I'm calling you on this. It's time to put up or shut up. Please take a few days to get your accusations and evidence in order and then present them so we can all see what you are talking about.

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 06:43, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

You can choose however you like. Everyone has to deal with contradictions. They are right there, and turning the focus on me does nothing. Jytdog (talk) 08:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this is all an argument about I-don't-know-what said I-don't-know-when by I-don't-know-who. If User:Doc James wants to explain exactly who, exactly what, and when, and says Jimmy Wales was right there, and was paying attention (I mean, they call them bored meetings for a reason - you sure he noticed?) and then he gives a contrary description, then maybe we can start speculating one of the two is actually saying something untrue. More likely, they'll simply say they interpreted the same statement differently, and if we heard the statement, then we'd have a chance to interpret it differently ourselves. This isn't hard science here ... more like an argument over how many smurfs you can squish in a barrel. Give me a bigger hammer and I can prove you a liar. :) Wnt (talk) 16:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I support Jytdog's free speech rights here because his persistence is within the bounds of civility, in my opinion.Smallbones is understandably getting tired of all the criticism of Jimbo, but persistence is often crucial when trying to get to the bottom of something and I think Jytdog's persistence is an acceptable approach in a seemingly complicated puzzle involving human behaviour with different spins and even different facts having been placed in our piublic arena for acceptance. It could be harmful to the long term soul of any movement to accept and archive presentations/reports about something important, that include what appears to some as a false reality propped up on flawed logic. At least that is my position on whether or not Jytdog has gone too far. I say no, he is just seeking the truth. Nocturnalnow (talk) 16:22, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Nocturnalnow but there is no "free speech" in WP, and nobody has any "rights" here. Jytdog (talk) 01:15, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have a different opinion. I believe we are all born with free speech rights and take them with us wherever we go/are. There may be negative consequences to exercising the right at some venues or in some manner and anyone can choose when, where, how, and if to exercise them, but we always have them, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 02:29, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry Nocturnalnow but this is about Jytdog's bullying which has reached the point of McCarthyism. And I mean specifically the tactics of repeating vague accusations - without any proof of any kind - so often that people assume that there must be something to it simply because the vague accusations have been repeated so often. Jytdog has been "asking" the same "questions" for 2.5 months now, and he has received reasonable answers. It's time for Jytdog to step up to the plate and say exactly what his accusations are and what his evidence is. I've given him a nice slow pitch right down the middle of the plate, if he has anything he can whack that pitch right out of the ballpark. But I say he has nothing, no believable accusations and no evidence to back it up.

Jytdog can you produce anything? Or are you just another Joseph McCarthy. It's up to you. Show your stuff. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 19:49, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: I've seen plenty of McCarthyism on this talk page in the past, and this ain't it. Please, we have enough chill pills on hand for everybody here. I have no doubt in my mind that dismissing a community representative was a bad idea, that not having a proper election afterward made it worse, but that doesn't mean that every side-issue where two imprecise accounts seem superficially contradictory has to lead to shouts of "that is a lie!", followed in due course by a duel at twenty paces. At the same time, we shouldn't expect people not to keep digging for details - which is one reason why it was such a bad idea, because it doesn't save the remaining board any hassles at all in the end. Wnt (talk) 20:53, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

@Smallbones: you are adding more heat than light throwing around hyperbolic accusations of McCarthyism. I have been reading this topic regularly and in my opinion Jimbo has indeed been guilty of giving answers which must be parsed for truth rather than being clear statements. Jimbo is a big boy and does not need others to shield him from questions from the community, he dodges them well enough on his own. Jbh^Talk 21:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

I'll just wait for Jytdog's answer, if he can come up with one. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:16, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Once again

There is a lot of stuff about elephants and 'he said she said'. I don't care about this. Jimmy, my point is that if you are going to accuse people of being liars, or mentally traumatized, or talking 'utter f---ing bullshit' or other such mean things, then you need to back this up with 'exact quotes'. Indeed, even with exact quotes I am not sure those things are justified. ONCE AGAIN: where did James say publicly that he wrote to you in October that WMF was building a Google-competing search engine and that you "more or less said that I'm fine with it". Simple question. Peter Damian (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Peter Damian is not the only one waiting for an answer here, Jimbo. If James said that publicly (as you claim), that should not be difficult for you to find, should it? Huldra (talk) 22:07, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

It would be a pity if this question slipped off to archive unanswered. HolidayInGibraltar (talk) 10:41, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Please note that Jimmy replies to this ('==What James said publicly==') below. Peter Damian (talk) 07:49, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Can trustees ignore community requests?

Regarding Guy Macon's request for trustees to speak up regarding whether or not they are aware of any threats of removal having been made prior to the KE vote i.e. "Does any other board member corroborate this claim?"; I see this as a separate issue from J's and J's differing accounts. I see this aspect as being about what, if any, responsibility the trustees have to show some respect for requests from well established members of the community. Does anyone know the answer? Nocturnalnow (talk) 21:39, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

None. Trustees are not accountable to the community. There is an ethical argument that they are based on the WMF's stated values of transparency, but there is no mechanism by which trustees are actually accountable to anyone except the majority of the trustees, who can by a simple vote oust any other member, for any reason. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Five of the trustees are accountable to the community at least in the sense that every two years they have to stand down or seek reelection. In the last community elections two sitting board members stood and both lost. In the current elections for chapter appointed seats neither sitting member is actually standing, so we have no way of knowing what that part of the community thinks of the current board or those two members. It is an element of accountability, but a tad unhealthy a situation. One wonders who will be the next board member to be re-elected by the community, we could be waiting a few years for that to happen. ϢereSpielChequers 14:50, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

agree (the situation is not clear)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Correction: THREE sitting members of the Board stood for re-election and THREE lost — but the Board (with its unelected majority) restored one of the defeated candidates to its ranks by tossing the elected representative Doc James over the side of the boat. Welcome to power politics in the false guise of democracy... Carrite (talk) 14:18, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Full disclosure

I and others still look forward to a disclosure of the story around the Knowledge Engine, and the WMF Board's role in Lila's acknowledged mistake to not bring the KE to the community earlier. This has not been disclosed anywhere yet. Jytdog (talk) 00:27, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Knowledge Engine project

"Many in the community were furious that details of such a large project had been withheld by an organization that prides itself on radical transparency. Wikimedia’s public story—that it was never working on a search engine—was directly contradicted by a grant proposal made to the Knight Foundation and leaked internal documents."

 —Jason Koebler, Vice[48]

Jimbo Wales, I understand you are willing to discuss the Knight Foundation grant and Knowledge Engine. One of the main issues is what were the events leading up to the Lila Tretikov's resignation and your involvement. The Knight Foundation grant was presented to the board members in September 2015, but according to The Signpost Lila Tretikov and other board members initially refused to allow the full details of the grant to be shared with James Heilman. Jimbo Wales, did you tell Lila Tretikov to make the Knowledge Engine project completely transparent to the other board members or did you tell her not to share the full details of the grant and engine or did you not say anything specific to Lila Tretikov in September and October 2015 regarding the grant or search engine project. People want to know what really happened since the project and events are still shrouded in secrecy.

Jimbo Wales, the initial blogpost by Wes Moran and Lila Tretikov contradicted the original grant application leaked internal documents. The leaked internal documents states the "Knowledge Engine By Wikipedia will democratize the discovery of media, news and information—it will make the Internet's most relevant information more accessible and openly curated, and it will create an open data engine that's completely free of commercial interests. Our new site will be the Internet’s first transparent search engine, and the first one that carries the reputation of Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Foundation." According to the leaked internal documents, the Knowledge Engine was originally intended to be a search engine on a new site and there is a concern that "Google, Yahoo, or another big commercial search engine could suddenly devote resources to a similar project, which could reduce the success of the project."[49] Jimbo Wales, did you tell or not tell Lila Tretikov to inform the Wikipedia community regarding the full details of the Knowledge Engine project? I am not sure what happened since Lila Tretikov never revealed all the grant documents. Jimbo Wales, was the Knowledge Engine project originally intended to be a much bigger project run on a new separate website, according to the leaked internal documents? Lila Tretikov never commented on the leaked internal documents as far as I know. For an organization that prides itself on transparency, I think it is odd that the WMF has not published an official statement regarding the original intention of the Knowledge Engine project and what is the current goal. If you did urge the board and/or the WMF towards full publication of the details of the grant and project how come the details and events have not been fully disclosed yet? User:Eloquence said in early March "the org is still in crisis mode and hopefully will enter a stable interim period soon."[50] According to Ariel Glenn, WMF's "tech gnome", it is "not just about an [Executive Director]."[51]. I previously commented in regard to the Knowledge Engine project but it was archived by the bot before you had a chance to reply. I hope you can clear up the confusion a bit. Thanks. QuackGuru (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Reply by Jimbo Wales

I strongly believe that all aspects of our long term strategy should be discussed with, and often led by, the community. Therefore, I always recommend to people who have ideas that they share them with the community as early as possible. I don't agree with you, by the way, that "the project and events are still shrouded in secrecy."

The project presented to the board at the Wikimania board meeting in Mexico was about improving internal search and discovery, with some very reasonable and modest first steps outlined. At that board meeting, we specifically discussed that this would not be a Google-like public search engine.

As it turns out, Damon Sicore had, much earlier, circulated internal proposals for a Google-like search engine. He did so with great cloak-and-dagger secrecy - one employee told me that he had to give his PGP key on a USB stick rather than it just being downloaded from a public keyserver, in order to get the proposal from Damon. As it further turns out, those proposals got no traction, and that was not what was ultimately presented to the board. As I understand it, some of the hype from those proposals survived into a grant proposal to the Knight Foundation, but what was actually proposed and funded was modest and sensible.

I know some people are looking for more than that, but that's what there is. Certainly, as I have said many times and as has been confirmed by many people, the board did not approve nor discuss favorably any concept for a "Google-like search engine". Also, no code was ever written, and the idea never got beyond Damon's brainstorm.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:00, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Questions for Jimbo Wales

Jimmy, could you please comment on how the WMF Vice President of Engineering would facilitate an environment where "great cloak-and-dagger secrecy" and requiring a "PGP key on a USB stick" for sharing materials between employees was considered normal behavior? Was the discovery of this kind of strangeness a contributing factor in why Sicore left WMF in July 2015? I know, you probably can't (or at least shouldn't) comment on such a specific personnel issue, but maybe you can speak in more general terms. I just know that if someone at my business were to ask me to provide a PGP key on a USB stick in order to see a workplace document that didn't include incredibly sensitive customer-identifying information, I think I'd be thinking about contacting our Human Resources department to ask where our organization is finding such people. I don't know, maybe it's different in a "tech firm" like Wikimedia Foundation? - 23.24.134.98 (talk) 14:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

I can't comment on specific personnel issues. Also, remember that I don't work at the Foundation on a daily basis, and so very specific details like what the culture was like when Damon was around are really not something that I know anything about first-hand. In general, I suppose I have the same questions that you do, except that I also think it's pretty much of academic interest at this point. Clearly, the culture that the Foundation comes from and exists in is one of extreme openness, not one of extreme secrecy. In some contexts, I should add, I don't think extreme secrecy is necessarily a bad thing - Apple has done quite well out of it, and it really helps them with their surprising marketing launches and so on. But - that isn't us, it shouldn't be us, and it isn't ever going to be us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:32, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Replies by the Community

JImmy do you know what was pitched to the Knight Foundation originally, who pitched it, who wrote the Knight Fdn grant, and who approved it? You also still have said nothing specific about the boards role (or perhaps better, failures) with regard to Leila making her acknowledged mistake of not bringing this to the community earlier. Do you have anything specific to say about that? Jytdog (talk) 16:18, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't at any of those meetings, so I don't know what was said. I'm not really sure who attended. The board, nor any members of the board to the best of my knowledge, never discouraged Lila from bringing anything to the community, and generally has always been broadly supportive of the community being consulted about everything important. As I've said before, it didn't occur to me that the relatively modest deliverables of the grant as approved by the board would not have been brought to the community, but at the same time, it didn't (and doesn't) seem like the kind of thing that would require a huge community consultation. If you're looking for board blame, it won't lie in the area of discouraging Lila from speaking to the community, it will lie in the area of simply assuming it would happen.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo has said what he thought of Lila's mistake - he said it was a mistake, but as everyone including the board, and Knight, and Lila understood, whatever extravagant padding there was in the puffery language in the grant - it was all simply early research on Wikipedia search process at wikipedia.org (an open source and thus transparent search process) and it's not at all worthy of this after-drama that some apparently conspiracy-minded people try to make it out to be. Jimbo has basically said all that, but for some reason people want him to say it over and over again, in some prosecutorial fashion of questioning. It's sad, really. The salient points are these:

• no engineering was done;
• the project was obviously disclosed to the community in November, which is just before the grant was accepted;
• and it's for research.

Some of you may think that early November is too late, but come on, it actually makes no difference to the project, and anyone now (and, at least, since November) can directly go to the people doing the research and talk to them about it, and if you are insightful, I am sure, influence their work. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I honest to God don't understand the paranoia that I've seen over this. Really. Wikipedia is not user friendly and needs a better search engine. It was pitched the way such things are. What is the problem with the Knowledge Engine? I just don't understand the objection. This is separate and apart from everything else, such as whether James was treated right (and I tend to think he wasn't). Coretheapple (talk) 17:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the objection was that we could not possibly hope to compete with a Goggle-style search engine, no matter how much money we put into it. The problem with this objection is that it's not clear whether anybody seriously proposed a Google-style search engine, and it is clear that the board never approved or even considered a Google-style search engine. So it's the usual thing about folks trying to make a mountain over an imagined molehill. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 17:35, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that competing with Google would be silly. There would be much better uses for the money. But making the search engine better is a good idea. I don't see the fuss. The blog post is quite clear on that. Coretheapple (talk) 17:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think understanding the furore about this isn't really about the improvements to the search. Some people are concerned that there really was a secret plot to do something crazy. There wasn't, and so there isn't much to say, nor much evidence to put forward other than the statements of engineers, an explanation of where the hyped language came from, and an understanding that one of the reasons there was insufficient communication with the community is that there actually never was any real plan to do anything dramatic. Had there been such a plan, of course the community consultation would have been huge and important and necessary and the right thing to do.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

By the way, even if you competed with Google, so what? It's within your remit. No, I am angry at you, but not for this reason. Coretheapple (talk) 19:40, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think Wikimedia could compete with Google, even beat it for certain kinds of searches. There are ongoing efforts to make open source search engines. There are proposals for search engines where the users' computers work collaboratively - something people will do for a free open source search engine, but not volunteer for just so some company can benefit. Google's results have obvious limitations, like certain characters you can't search for (you can find C , but not C--). Sometimes it seems like a war just to get search results that actually contain the text you searched for. More immediately, there's interest in open source search run against single specific sites (often by the site owners themselves) that could pretty much be indexed on demand. Last but by no means least, Google is becoming increasingly corrupted, generally against its will, by demands for it to "forget" various types of information. This is something that a networked search system controlled by hundreds of thousands of individual users might be able to resist more effectively than even the best-lawyered corporation. So the idea is by no means futile! It is also possible, however, that Wikimedia's search could be designed to complement and work with Google and other providers, offering a layer of protection for the privacy of users who choose whether to go on to the company's search hits or to investigate results added on by an open source network that specifically tries to index things that Google misses. My instinctive preference is just to see the coders get something prototyped ASAP that people can see and understand and work with... but then there is the risk that the patent trolls swarm over it, coming up with one obvious thing after another that you could do with it that they will ban you from doing until the day when or IF the patent expires. So I understand it isn't easy. Wnt (talk) 13:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Coretheapple if you have followed this (and apparently you haven't) you would know the following which is all in the pubic records. 1) James Heilman's platform for running for the Board was getting more resources for building content and adapting WP to current users' needs and improving transparency and community input on technology projects. 2) When he got to the board, he became aware of the KE initiative, documentation of which he has said that he himself had hard time getting access to, and which he has said he heard discussed as a "moonshot", and he said that he heard budget numbers on the order of $35M over several years for the project kicked around; 3) He was aware that this had not been discussed in the community and he has said that he argued within the board for such big commitments of the limited technology budget to be discussed in the community (in other words, doing exactly what he said he was going to do). 4) After wind of the Knight Fdn grant was made public, it took a lot of dogged effort by the community to get the grant application itself made public (it was only after one of us actually got the Knight Foundation to say that of course they were fine with it being published, that WMF published it - Lila had said that WMF would not publish it b/c the Knight Fdn wouldn't like that). 5) Once the grant application was published, everyone could read it, and if you do read it, it is plain as day that very ambitious plans are discussed in it. Lila has written that in the discussions with the Knight Foundation, the scope of what would actually be done with the grant money was pared down. The big plans are still there in the grant application. 6) Planning for the KE project was segregated within the WMF staff, and discontent around that and other things related to the KE project was a factor in staff discontent; staff discontent is what eventually led to Lila leaving. 7) James has said that his pushing for transparency around the KE was a key factor in his dismissal from the board. 8) There has never been a public disclosure of what actually happened with regard to the planning around the KE, how the staff re-arrangements, etc fit into that, etc, and how that changed over time. 9) it is obvious that what Discovery is doing now is improving internal WM/WP federated search, and just starting to explore how it could include other open sources of data in those search results.

That story is at the heart of a lot of the crap that has happened over the last couple of years, including James' dismissal. It is a story that I and many other people want to hear. There is nothing "paranoid" about any of that. Jytdog (talk) 22:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, you've made that point about 50 times already. Remind me not to ask you to stick up for me if I'm ever kicked off the WMF board of directors. Coretheapple (talk) 13:25, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

So if you know all that, why do you call the request to ask for the real story "paranoia"? That's a real question. Jytdog (talk) 06:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And I'll give you a real answer: It's either paranoia or trolling. Which of these best describes your behavior? I'll let you choose. Coretheapple (talk) 15:12, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Instead of actually responding , all you have done is call me names. If you want to have an actual discussion, I'll be ready, and won't take up my time actually trying to talk with you until then. Jytdog (talk) 04:36, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

You're making a mountain out of a molehill. I think I said that already and am not interested in feeding your appetite for repetitive discussion. Coretheapple (talk) 16:13, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Clarity on being Google-like

Jimmy, in almost every statement you've made about KE, you've used the term "Google-like search engine", often in the quotes. I think the question people are asking is more general, i.e. whether KE was/is intended to allow searches for pages and resources outside of the WMF constellation of websites. Google's algorithmic system (not to mention giant server farms with independent power sources) is obviously well beyond the WMF's capacity, but a distributed open search engine (see Wnt's comment in section above) or another alternative model certainly is something it could contribute to. Was KE aimed exclusively at WMF-hosted content, or was it intended to have the capability to index and find sources outside the WMF projects? --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 14:34, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

That's not a bad question as I have been assuming that this KE thing is just a way to get some order out of the chaos of Wikipedia. If it goes beyond that it's a different ball game. Coretheapple (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps Jimmy should paste the FAQ link at the top of this page; that is why a FAQ is created, after all. See WM:FAQ: If it is possible at some point within the limits of open software development, here, as part of the publicly consulted upon project, it may in the future look at including reasonable public data. Go talk to the people who are working on it, see how you can shape the project, right now. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:33, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Ah, the FAQ is plain enough. Thanks. Coretheapple (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

There's also File:Wikipedia_Search_April_2015.png, showing a result from Fox News.

The question is how the qualifying words "Google-like" are being used to answer the questions, since if what he means is that KE will not have Google-like features (such as proprietary algorithms, crawlers, and industrial scale), the inconsistencies between what he has been saying and what the evidence points to evaporates, though not necessarily in a very informative way. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 17:11, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

If one thinks Fox News is worthwhile to include down the road than convince the WMF in the open comment development process. If one does not think Fox News is worthwhile than one can rest assured that it's not included now and they are looking for public comment on what they are doing. You are right that 'Google like' is vague but it's not like Google at all at present and demonstrably as an actual thing never has been, including in inviting anyone who wants to be involved, to be involved. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:27, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

We're talking past each other somehow. I was asking Jimmy about his use of the qualifier "google-like". Otherwise I suspect we're on the same page. --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 00:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Since this was never pursued at more than the brainstorm stage, I don't think there is a really 100% clear answer to the question. Some documents have seen can be read as contemplating possibly also indexing other "non-commercial" sources - that term is super vague, but I think what was intended was fellow-traveling academic sources such as academic journals (but many of those are commercial, so maybe only the open-access ones?). I've never seen where anyone ever went beyond the most basic of bullet points on a slide, though, so really this isn't a question that actually has an answer.

If we aren't engaging in some kind of "gotcha" process about things in the past, then I think an interesting and useful conversation could be had about what non-WMF resources might be included in a revamped discovery experience.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:37, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the following explains it: Conceptual Directions for Discovery, and it actually does correlate somewhat with Related pages, the feature under user Preferences, Beta Features that I asked about earlier. Of course, it is only a tiny part of it not to mention greatly expanded and far more sophisticated in the current projections for the KE. Those editors who haven't enabled the beta feature yet, I highly recommend it. Atsme^📞📧 14:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Jimmy, no one is looking for "gotcha". We are looking for a clear narrative of the story that we can see pieces of in the Knight Grant, the talk about a "moonshot", and the talk about a $35M budget over several years, and of course how the plans changed over time. There is no "gotcha" here. Jytdog (talk) 06:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Not from you, I agree. But some are clearly looking for a "gotcha". But I think you should also understand that there may not be a "clear narrative" for things that happened in history. What we have so far is about all we are going to get, I think. Damon had some ideas circulated under deep secrecy, requiring people to give PGP keys and so on. Those ideas never got traction, but some of the language in those early brainstorms survived into some documents sent to the Knight Foundation. There were also meetings with the Knight Foundation, but there is no way to know now exactly what was said there, other than that I understand that the Knight Foundation, the WMF, and the community are all in sync that the deliverables in the actual grant are not problematic. Talk about an $X million budget over several years - I have never seen a really detailed breakdown of where that number came from, nor would I expect that there ever was one, given the preliminary state of things. It doesn't strike me as a particularly large number if it is $35M over several years. (The number I have in a board document is less than that, but in that ballpark.) Keep in mind those costs don't only include software development, but also things like promotion of our API to partner institutions, etc. (As an example, imagine if every museum in the world had an easy way to return Wikipedia search results alongside their own search results - this would result in great traffic to us.) I don't think there's a narrative around how plans changed over time, as there weren't really fully fleshed out "plans" in the sense of a detailed roadmap with budgets along the way. The idea, which is the right way to do things, is to get started on things that need doing anyway, and begin exploring what else should be done.

The kind of "gotcha" that I think some people want lies in the area of pointing to the abandoned Wikia search project as evidence that I *personally* drove forward a mission to build a competitor to Google. That's just false, as should be very clear by now.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The question isn't whether you personally drove a mission to build a competitor to Google, but rather was it clear to everyone involved with the grant that this was not just an internal search tool. In other words, what's behind your choice of the phrase "google-like search engine" whenever discussing what the board knew, what User:Doc James is wrong about, etc.

FWIW I don't have any issue whatsoever with creating an engine, though it would be on the level of a new project and should be discussed openly first (which I suppose is what's happening now). However, if it's a search tool that can pull results from some non-WMF sites, it's also a tool that can pull results from any non-WMF site, and also be used by any other site for the same purpose (assuming it's freely licensed software, which also isn't clear). --SB_Johnny | ^talk✌ 11:47, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps you have a typo, or perhaps just a continued misunderstanding. It was clear to everyone (on the board) involved with the grant that this (the work to be funded by the grant) was just an internal search tool. No code, no architecture, no nothing other than a vague idea that maybe someday Wikipedia could also include other "non-commercial" results someday.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2016 (UTC)