Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:44, 31 July 2013

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates – he has an open door policy.

This is Jimbo Wales's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed

Archives: Index, Index, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, 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, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234, 235, 236, 237, 238, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250, 251, 252Auto-archiving period: 1 day

This user talk page might be watched by friendly talk page stalkers, which means that someone other than me might reply to your query. Their input is welcome and their help with messages that I cannot reply to quickly is appreciated.

Archives

Index –index– October 28, 2001 – April 12, 2004 April 16, 2004 – August 23, 2004 August 28, 2004 – December 8, 2004 December 9, 2004 – March 23, 2005 March 23, 2005 – July 24, 2005 July 26, 2005 – September 9, 2005 September 9, 2005 – September 24, 2005 September – December 2005 January 2006 January – February 2006 February 2006 February 2006, cont. March 2006 April 2006 – late May 2006 May 24 – July 2006 July 2006 – August 2006 August 2006 Most of September 2006 Late September 2006 – Early November 2006 Most of November 2006 Late November 2006 – December 8, 2006 December 9, 2006 – Mid January 2007 From December 22, 2006 blanking Mid January 2007 – Mid February 2007 Mid February 2007– Feb 25, 2007 From March 2, 2007 blanking March 2–5, 2007 March 5–11, 2007 March 11 – April 3, 2007 April 2 – May 2, 2007 May 3 – June 7, 2007 June 9 – July 4, 2007 July 13 – August 17, 2007 August 17 – September 11, 2007 September 14 – October 7, 2007 October 28 – December 1, 2007 December 2 – December 16, 2007 December 15 – January 4, 2008 January 4 – January 30, 2008 January 30 – February 28, 2008 February 28 – March 11, 2008 March 9 – April 18, 2008 April 18 – May 30, 2008 May 30 – July 27, 2008 July 26 – October 4, 2008 October 4 – November 12, 2008 November 10 – December 10, 2008 December 5 – December 25, 2008 December 25 – January 16, 2009 January 15 – January 27, 2009 January 26 – February 10, 2009 February 8 – March 18, 2009 March 18 – May 6, 2009 May 5 – June 9, 2009 June 10 – July 11, 2009 July 12 – August 25, 2009 August 26 – October 3, 2009 October 4 – November 20, 2009 November 20 – December 21, 2009 December 22, 2009 – January 25, 2010 January 22, 2010 – February 22, 2010 February 22, 2010 – March 17, 2010 March 17, 2010 – April 9, 2010 April 11, 2010 – April 24, 2010 April 23, 2010 – May 12, 2010 May 10, 2010 – June 4, 2010 June 4, 2010 – June 26, 2010 June 26, 2010 – July 22, 2010 July 22, 2010 – August 23, 2010 August 4, 2010 – August 28, 2010 August 28, 2010 – September 14, 2010 September 13, 2010 – October 6, 2010 October 6, 2010 – November 8, 2010 November 8, 2010 – November 21, 2010 November 21, 2010 – December 6, 2010 December 6, 2010 – December 22, 2010 December 21, 2010 – January 17, 2011 January 16, 2011 – February 10, 2011 February 6, 2011 – March 19, 2011 March 16, 2011 – March 26, 2011 March 26, 2011 – April 22, 2011 April 22, 2011 – May 16, 2011 May 17, 2011 – June 9, 2011 June 10, 2011 – July 1, 2011 July 1, 2011 – July 15, 2011 July 16, 2011 – July 26, 2011 July 26, 2011 – August 15, 2011 August 14, 2011 – August 23, 2011 August 21, 2011 – August 31, 2011 August 30, 2011 – September 7, 2011 September 4, 2011 – September 25, 2011 September 26, 2011 – October 19, 2011 October 16, 2011 – November 5, 2011 November 4, 2011 – November 12, 2011 November 11, 2011 – November 24, 2011 November 24, 2011 – December 6, 2011 December 3, 2011 – December 14, 2011 December 10, 2011 – December 16, 2011 (RFC about the Stop Online Piracy Act) December 15, 2011 – December 30, 2011 December 27, 2011 – January 9, 2012 January 9, 2012 – January 18, 2012 January 17, 2012 – January 30, 2012 January 28, 2012 – February 12, 2012 February 7, 2012 – February 25, 2012 February 19, 2012 – March 4, 2012 February 27, 2012 – March 18, 2012 March 17, 2012 – April 2, 2012 March 31, 2012 – April 13, 2012 April 12, 2012 – April 18, 2012 April 18, 2012 – April 26, 2012 April 26, 2012 – May 6, 2012 May 2, 2012 – May 22, 2012 May 19, 2012 – June 9, 2012 June 4, 2012 – June 20, 2012 June 18, 2012 – June 28, 2012 June 26, 2012 – July 12, 2012 July 3, 2012 – July 22, 2012 July 19, 2012 – July 29, 2012 July 25, 2012 – August 9, 2012 August 7, 2012 – August 30, 2012 August 29, 2012 – September 13, 2012 September 13, 2012 – September 27, 2012 September 26, 2012 – October 5, 2012 September 24, 2012 – October 20, 2012 October 9, 2012 – October 31, 2012 October 29, 2012 – November 19, 2012 November 17, 2012 – December 5, 2012 December 2–15, 2012 December 15–28, 2012 December 24, 2012 – January 12, 2013 January 13–31, 2013 February 1–10, 2013 February 11–28, 2013 March 1–16, 2013 March 17–27, 2013 March 28 – April 6, 2013 April 6–19, 2013 April 19 – May 3, 2013 April 25 – May 8, 2013 May 6–19, 2013 May 18–30, 2013 May 27 – June 16, 2013 June 17–30, 2013 June 27 – July 30, 2013 July 31 – August 4, 2013 August 4–12, 2013 August 13–27, 2013 August 28 – September 4, 2013 September 5–10, 2013 September 11–22, 2013 September 24 – October 6, 2013 October 7–16, 2013 October 17–27, 2103 October 28 – November 6, 2013 November 7–19, 2013 November 20–27, 2013 November 28 – December 5, 2013 December 6–24, 2013 December 25–30, 2013 December 31, 2013 – January 14, 2014 January 15–24, 2014 January 25–29, 2014 January 30 – February 10, 2014 Archives not yet dated: 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 This manual archive index may be out of date. Future archives: 184 185 186

This page has archives. Sections older than 24 hours may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 2 sections are present.

June editors edged to 7-year low but strong

The June editor-activity data (in http://stats.wikimedia.org/EN/TablesWikipediaEN.htm) still shows strong levels of editing, similar to recent months, so any major change in July levels would be surprising (such as the impact of VisualEditor). However, it is sad to see the June levels continue to erode, slightly, as now the lowest in about 7 years (since July 2006), but still wondering if editors are doing more in fewer edits. I plan on doing more to encourage the power users to keep going, and try to focus more MediaWiki software updates (+templates or Lua modules) on their concerns, with the developers in WMF platform engineering. Here are the June 2013 editor-activity levels:

Edits ≥	1	3	5	10	25	100	250	1000	2500	10000
Jun 2013	104,758	46,106	30,978	18,206	9143	3233	1366	225	50	6
May 2013	114,333	50,140	33,193	19,164	9513	3322	1453	246	52	3
Apr 2013	114,142	50,326	33,494	19,430	9583	3301	1446	240	53	4
Jun 2012	108,492	48,845	32,407	18,711	9307	3249	1375	220	53	3
May 2012	112,531	50,846	33,585	19,387	9622	3358	1484	237	54	2

Adjusted for the 30/31-day difference, the June 2013 levels are mostly ~1%-4% lower than May 2013, so it's not like a 10% drop or such. I guess we should also compare the June editor-activity levels for the other target languages of VE, when released today: German (de), Spanish (es), French (fr), Hebrew (he), Italian (it), Dutch (nl), Polish (pl), Russian (ru) and Swedish (sv). The Bugzilla entry for non-English Misplaced Pages issues with VisualEditor is: Template:Bugzilla. Anyway, the June 2013 data for enwiki still shows strong editor activity among the power users, although the new-editor group, of 5,654 users reaching 10 edits (down 14% since May), was the lowest in 7 years, since November 2005 gained only 3,567 new editors. -Wikid77 (talk) 14:08, 24 July, 05:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm a big believer in comparing things to previous year rather than previous month and the metric that I care most about is the 100+ edits/month group, so-called "very active editors" in the official jargon. June 2012 showed 3249 very active editors in English-Misplaced Pages, compared to 3233 in June 2013. That drop is 0.5%, which we can call "more or less flat." The same stats for May are 3358 and 3322, respectively, which is a drop of 1.1%, which we would call a "slight drop." New article creation is off about 10% for June 2013 vs. June 2012, which is more concerning. Carrite (talk) 02:43, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Almost all editor-activity levels are lower for June 2013, and the lowest in 7 years, even though only slightly below prior years for 100+ edits/month. I have added June/May 2012 into the above table, to compare the lower counts at the other edit-levels, such as 25+ edits/month. There are concerns now at almost every level. -Wikid77 (talk) 05:11, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree year-on-year is more useful - June is a big exam/holiday month and the start of the usual summer vacation fall-off. All levels above 100 epm show tiny declines yoy, or rises. A fall off in new article creation a) is probably explained by the forest of barbed wire AFC now represents and b) doesn't bother me at all as (sweeping generalization) we have far too many new articles & should be concentrating on improving the old ones. Maybe we've finally run out of Kentucky politicians, US naval transport ships etc. Johnbod (talk) 11:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to chime in here and say that at the WMF, we generally also look at these metrics on a year-over-year basis. There are plenty of month to month fluctuations in our numbers, including due to seasonal trends that Johnbod hinted at (school, holidays, etc.). If you're interested in how we examine editor trends, the presentation from the July metrics and activities meeting is a good example. Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 23:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There is strong evidence that more than than half of anonymous IP editors are as sophisticated and prolific as "active" registered editors. Therefore, trying to count people is foolish and we should start concentrating on bytes added to articlespace per time period instead. 97.122.187.243 (talk) 08:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is any evidence whatsoever, let alone strong evidence, that "more than than half of anonymous IP editors are as sophisticated and prolific as 'active' registered editors," I certainly am not aware of it. Can you point me to such evidence? I believe that quite the contrary is true, that "more than than half of Misplaced Pages vandalism and problematic edits are the product of anonymous IP editors," but I admit that this is an impressionistic observation based on perusal of various edit histories over time. I'm sure vandal fighters would have a more definite opinion on this. There are certainly many anonymous IP editors who are as productive and sophisticated as is typical for mostly anonymous named accounts, don't get me wrong, but "more than half?" That I doubt. How many? That's a question resolvable by empirical evidence... If we toss aside the count of mostly anonymous named accounts contributing content, the count of new articles is way off from the previous year's pace, which may be considered a cause for grave concern. I'm not really all that stressed about that metric myself, since this would be a natural tendency of a maturing encyclopedia. Topics get "taken." Carrite (talk) 15:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes there is, but don't take my word for it. Click recent changes and do your own tally. Count how many IPs are adding templates or whatever measure of sophistication you prefer. It's an easy script. 97.124.165.149 (talk) 16:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

If you don't mind, I'll wait to take you up on that. Other "regular editors" might be doing what I did and playing with VE logged out as an IP, having shut it down for their account. I'll keep my eyes open watching edit histories... Carrite (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

After a couple visits to the ever-changing Recent Changes queue, I'm sure not seeing it. Minor changes via VE. I did see one substantial contribution about a middle school, which will be ephemeral since it won't clear the notability bar. IP editors are, I think it is very likely — (1) newer, (2) making fewer substantial contributions, (3) creating more problematic contributions, and (4) adding content at a lower level of sophistication than registered name editors — on average. You want to see adequate footnoting to provide required verifiability? An IP editor is far less likely to be making it. Again, if there are systematically sampled academic studies on this question, that trumps impressionistic opinions. But I'd lay money that I am right here... No offense, of course. Carrite (talk) 17:51, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Wikid77. Do the "active editing" stats include IPs or just logged in edits? Carrite (talk) 20:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Those are username-only stats in TablesWikipediaEN.htm, while the Bot edits are in separate columns (see German: http://stats.wikimedia.org/DE/TablesWikipediaDE.htm, "Mai" is May), and so-called "new" users must reach 10 edits, but the IP users are estimated at 2/3 one-half (54% in 2013) of the general username activity levels. However, while usernames might include a few wp:SOCK#Legit alternate usernames, the IP users are often rotating as dynamic IP addresses (often 255 numbers, or more for large ISP companies, among billions of IP numbers). The IP user who created articles "Édith Piaf" and "Maria Callas" was over 100 other IPs, looking like "100 newcomers" in general. -Wikid77 (talk) 12:17, 26 July, 05:25, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

So, what exactly is an edit? Is the insert of a comma the equal to a thousand words added to an article? If so, that definition seems so skewed as to be a useless measure.

An "edit" in the statistics is any change to a mainspace article (not a talk-page, template, user page, nor help-page, etc.). Although inserting a comma counts the same as a thousand-word edit, among 110,000 active usernames and 3 million edits, the "average edit" tends to balance out to a relatively simple edit, and few editors are changing or adding even 250 words to an article. A sample of 4,000 edits (30 July) shows: 3.4% of edits (136) add +1 character (comma/letter), 2.3% remove -1, but 7.4% of edits (296) make an exact "(0)" replacement of letters/digits, as total 13% of edits are ±1/0, but 73% net less than 99-byte changes (<15 words, while some rewrite sections netting up to 14 words); only 26 edits (0.6%) net over 250 words, and only 9 (2-per-thousand, 0.2%) net over 1,000 words, but 85% of large edits either create new pages or revert blanking of sections, including 13.8% using VE. -Wikid77 12:35/16:30, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• IP edits are 54% of username levels, 1/3 of total: Because the relative edit-counts of IP users is often noted as an issue, in comparisons to username-based edits, then the levels should be emphasized. For some years, the IP edits have been about one-third of all edits, where edit-count statistics in mid-July 2013 logged IP edits as 54% of the username-based edit-counts. I am creating essay "wp:IP users" to better explain the activities of IP users, for future reference. -Wikid77 06:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Personal and Moral Rights?

Sorry; if I’m trying to bring your attention again to Commons.

We have a discussion on the moral rights of the photographers and the personal rights of the subjects; two different topics and rarely come together as in the case of your portrait where you are the subject and original author as per the work for hire contract. And, that video is showcasing the original Jimmy Wales portrait several times from the beginning to end and finally attributes to it with courtesy notes. So it is derivative work per http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/101, "a derogatory action in relation to the Original Work which would be prejudicial to the Original Author's honor or reputation" (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/legalcode 4d); a clear violation of moral rights of the Original Author.

Further, : "Creative Commons licenses do not waive or otherwise affect rights of privacy or publicity to the extent they apply. If you have created a work or wish to use a work that might in some way implicate these rights, you may need to obtain permission from the individuals whose rights may be affected." So that video is a clear violation of the privacy/personal rights of the subject too.

While discussing these matters as a generic concern that seriously affects the photographic community in Commons; we found the current policies of Commons are desperately inadequate for our safety and to protect our reputation. At Commons:Commons:Non-copyright_restrictions, Commons is trying to impose "the reusers of Commons-hosted media to ensure that they do not violate any non-copyright restrictions that apply to the media." It’s OK; Commons can’t take the responsibility of the damages, the reusers make outside it. But it is not good if Commons itself allow and encourage hosting of such works infringing the Non-copyright-restrictions (like moral rights of the authors and personal rights of the subjects).

While looking for a solution, some people suggested that "I strongly agree with you on Commons defending people's dignity through policy but think this must come first through a stronger statement from the WMF. They are legally prevented from direct editorial control (that would make them responsible and so liable to be sued for what content we have) but they can be much more specific about what they want wrt scope and moral issues."

We noticed the resolution http://wikimediafoundation.org/Resolution:Images_of_identifiable_people; but it seems only related to privacy rights; we can’t see any resolution related to photographers' moral rights. There is some discussion is going on at commons:Commons_talk:Photographs_of_identifiable_people/Update_2013/Moral_issues under commons:Commons_talk:Project_scope/Update_2013/Stage_2 on the base of it; but I can’t see much developments.

Could you express your stand on these matters; and do you promise us that you make any attempt to protect our rights. I/We feel it is dangerous to make further media contributions in a community which encourages making and hosting derivative works of our own works to humiliate us. JKadavoor Jee 08:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

My first comment is that it is absolutely untrue that the WMF is "legally prevented from direct editorial control (that would mke them responsible and so liable to be sued for what content we have)". This is a frequent and unfortunate misunderstanding of the law. Section 230 is explicitly designed to allow for direct editorial control without undue risk. The Foundation can exercise direct editorial control without thereby becoming liable for what other people do. This is important.

Second, I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 12:53, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy for your reply. "I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. My views on this are not new, and are well known. Our project is a grand humanitarian effort. That it has been hijacked by people who do not share our values is something that needs to be fixed." So Jimmy; can we expect a WMF attempt to ‘’fix’’ Commons? If so; I request you to do it immediately. Otherwise Commons will end up as a cemetery of some people you mentioned above and their bot-transferred xxx contents from Flickr or similar sites.

Or you mean, that it is the responsibility of the common community is to fix their issue? If so; I've little hope. We already discussed this matter with Russavia in detail; but he refused to take any responsibility for his rude behaviour. In that discussion, Slaunger (one who started the commons:COM:VI projects) finally offered him three solutions: "If you do not agree with the resolution, you have three options. 1) Work with the WMF and try to make them change their minds, or introduce some notability exceptions in their resolution, which it appears you think would be reasonable. 2) Pretend you love it and be loyal to it, although you really do not entirely agree. This is an entirely normal and pragmatic decision for many individuals being a member of an organization, to bend a little to adapt to the norms, because, overall, you can see that in the big picture values of the organization are aligned with your own. 3) You can come to the conclusion that your own view on the resolution differs so much, that you cannot see yourself as part of it - and resign from a current role."

So I request you to once again to bring this matter to the attention of WMF, make a resolution or something to force Commons make enough policies to protect our rights as a photographer and our commitments to our subjects. I’ve not much knowledge about the WMF hierarchies; don’t know whether this is the right place to make such a request. (I’m living in the opposite side of the world, in a remote place with frequent electricity and Internet connectivity problems; so this late response. Sorry.) JKadavoor Jee 05:15, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am just one board member on this issue. I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff, but I need help from the community to illustrate that this is a problem that concerns many of us.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimmy; we’ll try our best from our side, because it is a real concern for us as socially committed photographers. JKadavoor Jee 07:22, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Apologies for my erroneous remark concerning editorial control. My limited non-lawyer understanding is perhaps more influenced by UK/EU law see paragraphs 42-47. To me this means (if Commons was based in the EU) that staff could not participate in deletion discussions (especially voting keep) without making themselves liable for the content. Indeed, I am concerned myself about participating in deletion discussions in case that makes me liable for any content I say should be kept. Am I misreading the EU law or is the US law quite different?

On the ethical issues I think have a situation where Commons admins think they own the site and a crowdsourced editorial policy and decision-making fails when not given enough direction from above. Too often the deletion discussions rely on an mechanical interpretation of what freedoms are allowed by law or existing policy (which is generous) rather than any consideration of ethics or of not being a jerk or a creep (see Autumn leaf discussion below). -- Colin° 07:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• I think that the commons community has gone down a very sad and disappointing path with respect to ethical matters. I fully agree, but the real question is: what do you plan to do about it? Saying that commons should change is all good and dandy, but it changes nothing. It's become overly clear that we mere editors can't do anything about it, because the porn brigade has managed to get some of its members elected to positions of power (which means that they, basically, get to close deletion discussions and may even restrict those who try to interfere with their porn stash). This means that it's time you and the foundation put your money where your collective mouth is and start doing something other than simply repeating commons is broken. Otherwise, nothing will ever change. Salvio 11:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy already offered "I will continue to call this to the attention of the board and staff" and requested moral support "from the community". I think this includes the other matter you mentioned too. :) JKadavoor Jee 12:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Bring it on, guys. And Jimbo, thanks for your concerns with the matter as well. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:12, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

We welcome DRs which will remove low quality, redundant sexual material. Please feel free to nominate some. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:53, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Never, unless Commoners (except for a few, like Colin) change their attitude and learn their morals. You can have my word on this. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:56, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I was actually replying to Salvio, since he was the one who brought up the issue of sexual imagery. You are of course welcome to participate in such deletion requests as well, though I can understand why you would not wish to. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:14, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Are you joking? Why do we waste our time by begging in front of some people who are morally incapable to make any decisions? This current example is a solid proof for that. I think it will be like begging for justice in front of devils.

Further: A DR is not the best way to keep Commons away from inappropriate contents. Commons will be saved If you (the corrupted admins) take a voluntary decision to refrain from uploading contents without proper preview. Do you need examples? Here he not only failed to make a review before making the upload; he failed to understand the problem after getting the DR too. He exclaimed: “Ummm, can you please explain your nomination reason? Do we have a similar photo to this on Commons?” After getting the second arrogant comment, he desperately accepted that he violated Commons:IDENT. What more we can expect from such a ‘crat and admins?

I would like to repeat the comment that I posted somewhere else: "I believe an admin should be morally and ethically sound enough to understand the essence of those policies to make wise decisions". No community is safe even if they have enough good policies and guidelines; it (the safety) depends more on the goodness of the judges and rulers who act upon them. JKadavoor Jee 16:50, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read commons:User_talk:Underlying_lk#Commons:Deletion_requests/File:Haitian_Shower_(8010089794).jpg. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I had read it. The civility of the requester after the deletion is not an excuse for a 'crat's ignorance and incapability to understand basic things. JKadavoor Jee 02:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I take exception to the assertion that "It's become overly clear that we mere editors can't do anything about it, because the porn brigade has managed to get some of its members elected to positions of power (which means that they, basically, get to close deletion discussions and may even restrict those who try to interfere with their porn stash)." Commons was founded on principles of inclusivity and the admins have merely interpreted them properly, not out of personal bias, but for the sake of the project. It is easy to bully a group of editors based on potential interest in any one topic, but it is not logically valid. If some people had a personal dislike for anime they could say that the "anime brigade" had infested Commons and was failing to delete all of it when they said so, and that needed to be fixed. Or more likely, soon enough after this we will be seeing the claim that a "Democrat brigade" is immoral because it fails to delete facts and illustrations that might be embarrassing to corporate subjects. The fact is, the only people who have been organizing and trying to take power are the censorship proponents, who are trying to make as much a disaster area of Misplaced Pages as they threaten to do with their native Britain, where under guise of a fictitious decency every word is to pass through the all-knowing, all-seeing, all-wise blackboxes of BAE Detica to be heard. But Commons does not and cannot work as a set of private fiefdoms where only what is politically backed is allowed. Wnt (talk) 21:02, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Would you mind taking exception away from the keyboard please. Colin° 14:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wnt has drunk deep of the Commons kool-aid, it is best to just ignore his dribblings on this subject. The Commons crew have it down to a cold science, all they do is have one of their buds hold back from supporting/opposing, delete/keep, whatever the matter at hand is...then that "uninvolved" person can be eligible to close the discussion. Wipe, rinse, repeat. Tarc (talk) 15:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly; as in the case below. JKadavoor Jee 16:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wnt has it right, and that comments above against him are personal attacks instead of rational arguments go a long way showing who is on the side of reason and NPOV. The truth is that there is a definite moral panic about sexual content, and that what is disruptive is the constant escalation of "I don't like sexual content" to "OMG Commons is broken". This is moral and cultural bias at its worst. -- cyclopia 16:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've yet to see a 'rational argument' as to why Commons should be a host to a giant stash of low-quality porn of dubious provenance... AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, we can say "I've yet to see a 'rational argument' as to why commons should be a host to a giant stash of ". Of parties, for example. Or of dogs. Or of computer keyboards. If redundant content is the problem, I wonder why I never see crusades against having hundreds of pictures of computer keyboards, and instead I always see them complaining about human body parts that the culture(s) of many editors happens to find somewhat disturbing (despite them having them on their bodies as well, I suppose). -- cyclopia 17:06, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

If the mob at commons didn't spend so much time obsessing over their porn stash, they could usefully get rid of some of the other redundant material too. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Guys, this isn't adding anything new to the debate. Please absorb the take-offence/righteous-anger stuff and avoid posting till you have something clam and novel to say. Colin° 17:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Then please stop being patronizing. The point is that this has to be repeated even if it is not new, because it is important that it doesn't look like there is only one side on this issue. -- cyclopia 18:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

We would welcome your nominating redundant material for deletion - we don't want it, so if you find it tell us and we can do something about it. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:51, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia, why are you mixing morality and sexuality? Morality only means manner, character, and proper behaviour. I’ve no known hate to sexual contents as far as it respects personal rights. In the above example I mentioned; the woman was bathing in an open space due to her poverty; without expecting that she will be a prey for a wicked photographer with a tele lens. JKadavoor Jee 17:01, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was not talking about that deletion -which makes perfect sense. I was referring in general to the "porn brigade" comments, Wnt reply and subsequent replies. -- cyclopia 17:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wnt's comments do not show he "is on the side of reason", but do show he'd rather waste our time with lengthy attacks on some colourful rhetoric than engaging in the real issues. On the issue of deletion closure, to be fair, the consensus at that deletion request discussion was clearly keep, so there wasn't anything unfair about the admin closure result itself. Not that you'd guess that it was a "per consensus" closure from Matt's lecture to the proles. Commons:Deletion policy doesn't even mention the word consensus (though the Commons:Commons:Deletion requests page says it will be "taken in to account"). In other words, we've got a system there where admins have a stronger and final say, and the community has at best an advisory role, and at worst, gets completely ignored. Commons' deletion policy needs improved. It needs to mention consensus, to mention the "courtesy deletions" practice, and to note that the list of "Reasons for deletion" given is not necessarily exhaustive. -- Colin° 17:09, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

In that DR; I have clear evidence for improper admin involvements as a joint attack. See this. Finally I have to report it to the Administrators’ notice board. JKadavoor Jee 17:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Because, unfortunately, Salvio occupies a high position on en.wikipedia, I do not feel it is a waste of time for me to speak out against his call for an overturn of basic principles of inclusivity and community. It was a short reply to a long thread; I didn't cover everything, no. Some of the claims in the broader conversation need to be legally evaluated - if the WMF is not totally dysfunctional it needs to see refuting such claims as a core mission - namely, that contributions by under 18 aren't really free-licensed, or that "moral rights" prohibit people from freely adapting a photo of a butterfly as they see fit. If such claims were valid, the entire WMF and all its works would be at risk of being relegated to the realm of pirate distribution. Wnt (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your wise words. Yes; WMF should seriously involve to guide the projects they posses than simply watching and maintaining them. JKadavoor Jee 02:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF should be a tool that serves the community, it should not guide it. When it tries to guide the community it can fail spectacularly -see the VisualEditor fiasco.-- cyclopia 11:50, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You don't own Misplaced Pages, they do. They can, and should, set the moral and legal framework that we operate under, and define the scope and purpose of the project we are helping them achieve. IMO they haven't done enough in this regard, especially on Commons. If you want a "tool that serves the community" then you would need to (collectively) own Misplaced Pages/Commons and the WMF would just be staff employed/appointed by the community to build/maintain it -- like we pay our taxes to the local council and get to vote for their leaders. Colin° 12:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I know the community doesn't own Misplaced Pages, thanks. However, given that most of WMF is financed by donations of the community, I'd say that they are a bit in the situation of a taxes-paid council. But even if they are not, one thing is what they can do, another what they should do. If you feel WMF should govern with an iron fist, you're free to think so. My opinion is more nuanced: WMF should behave, at least, as a tool to enforce the community, not bypassing it, while of course retaining ultimate control for emergency cases (e.g. legal issues). And that's more or less what it does. Again, I personally feel that when WMF attempted to enforce its power, it created more harm than good. The last VE thing however is an interesting case in this respect. But hey, I may be wrong. -- cyclopia 12:31, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

No "iron fist" required. Just clarity. Colin° 12:56, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You keep speaking as if you own Misplaced Pages and can throw out what you don't like. I assure you, I put great effort into weakening the proposed Commons:COM:SEX so thoroughly that I was actually neutral toward its passage in the end. Nonetheless, when it reached actual voters they rejected it as censorship. When you and I and a half dozen other people finally give up arguing on whichever of the 30-odd RFCs of the "Commons:Commons:Project scope/Update 2013" proposal that MichaelMaggs wants to hear about, whatever comes out of it will be rejected soundly in any vote, while ignoring the vote would splinter the organization. Wnt (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Lordy. Splinter the organisation, you say? Better not do that then - sounds serious. Begoon  14:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

WMF is not just a dumb tool; it is a non-profit organization that operates Misplaced Pages and other free knowledge projects. It has a bylaw, vision and mission. It has a responsibility to correct the community whenever it feels they are deviating from its values. They did it several times through many resolutions. They include Personal Image Hiding Feature, Controversial content, Images of identifiable people, Biographies of living people and Nondiscrimination. I can’t see any reason why it can’t make another resolution to protect our moral/personal rights. JKadavoor Jee 15:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You can't see a reason why it can't because there isn't a reason why it can't. I hope it will see the large number of expressed concerns from the community, at least some of which Jimbo seems to share, as a reason why it should, and will. Begoon  15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes; I hope. Thanks. JKadavoor Jee 16:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Notice: Kat Walsh replied on her talk page. JKadavoor Jee 02:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I have opened a thread at COM:AN/U regarding a concern over Russavias community role as a 'crat. The concern is mainly a spinn-off from the Pricasso incidence. Since I mention your portraits there, you might want to drop by and comment on it. --Slaunger (talk) 21:31, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
• Samuel Klein commented on his talk page: "I agree that we should take these rights seriously, and second Kat's comments on the matter. As Jimbo says, a clear community position is needed - even if it is a minority position - to articulate the problem and potential solution." JKadavoor Jee 06:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Commons:Deletion requests/File:Doleschallia bisaltide bisaltide (Autumn Leaf) - male, January 2013, Singapore.jpg

Hey Jimmy, I hope you can empathise with me on this. Jkadavoor's talking about this because of me. I'm getting irritated and very disturbed with my image being used, and Commons as well as Commoners' lack of respect (especially to contributors) and morals. I will be sending an email to you within the next 2 hours. Please keep your inbox checked. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 13:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, Arctic Kangaroo; my comments here are no way related to your issue; it is only a simple matter that can be resolved with sympathy and empathy, considering your younger age. I too have younger brothers. (My/our topic is well described here and somewhat here.) JKadavoor Jee 05:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Talking about poor morals, and no respect towards fellow contributors, I'm very disappointed to say that Geo Swan is a fellow en.wiki contributor who is part of that group on Commons. He's also carried his very good values with him when he works on en.wiki. Perhaps, you also want to read the discussion conversation argument that I had with him. diff ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

About User:Arctic Kangaroo above, Jimbo don't be swayed too much by that.If you have a look you find that s/he's just complaining because s/he suddenly changed mind about the copyright of some pictures of butterflies. That is obviously an impossible-to-honour request -if it was, I could revoke my contributions from Misplaced Pages at any moment, and WP should be obliged to comply. The whole point of free licences is that of giving up some of your intellectual "property" rights on a work. If the creator still holds the power to revoke, then s/he holds all power on the work, and thus it is not free anymore. We've banned users that refused to comply with license requirements, and rightly so. -- cyclopia 14:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

It's all related. And Cyclopia, I haven't sent the email. Inside there will be whatever reasons I have to say. Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:27, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• In the interests of permanence I added a diff after Arctic Kangaroo's link to my talk page. Geo Swan (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 15:42, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've noted here that Arctic Kangaroo asked in all good faith about how to upload the image without others using it, he was given very very bad advice here on Misplaced Pages as part of a formal adoption process, and appears to have followed that advice in good faith. I'm seeing this issue as being largely the result of that very very bad advice, not a result of any bad faith or incompetence on Arctic Kangaroo or Geo Swan's part. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 17:01, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I think this is very relevant. Cyclopedia, your concern that if we allow one user to delete a file based on a change of heart, we have to do so in all cases, is simply not true. We can and should make exceptions for a wide variety of reasons. In the vast majority of cases, one picture is worth being jerks about it.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:41, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

If there is evidence he followed bad advice, a case could be made for him not having actually understood the CC requirements, thus invalidating it for his pictures. This is fine by me: he simply did not consent to a contract, de facto. So no exceptions to be made. Then I apologize, and this makes it clear we have to be clearer on what releasing with CC means during upload.

However what I worry is exactly the "make exceptions" issue. If you summarily understand the CC license, then there cannot be turning back, because to do so means the author has full power on the work: and that undermines the whole concept of a free license. -- cyclopia 09:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

That the CC licence is irrevocable does to compel us to irrevocably host the image or irrevocably use it on Misplaced Pages projects. We can choose to remove the file from our servers as a result of community discussion. Too often the slippery slope fallacy is used to justify taking a hard-line position. This makes it very hard to remove material because it is the right thing to do rather than because some law or policy absolutely requires it. That attitude needs to change. Commons is not compelled to host anything. An example of a user taking a hard-line principles-first approach is Geo Swan's discussion with AK (linked above). Geo Swan's uploading of AK's picture to his Flickr account not only breaks Flickr's terms and conditions but is a really nasty way of proving one's point. Colin° 10:44, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not a slippery slope argument, because one case where we guarantee this is enough to formally dismantle the whole concept of a free license. Free license = you do NOT have anymore full rights on the work, only those preserved by the license. There is no turning back. This case may be an exception only because the uploader did not actually know about what the license meant really in advance, and it perhaps can be proven by the discussion linked by Demiurge1000 above. But if there is no sound proof of that, going back is a no-no. Even doing it once would immediately make all free licensing moot: it would show they have no bearing whatsoever anymore, even if nobody else asks to revoke them again. Which, however, will most likely happen, if we create precedents. This may look like a one-time mistakes-happen let's-do-the-decent-thing occurrence, but it is instead deeply ruinous. It threatens the very foundation of the concept of a free licence. Don't underestimate that. -- cyclopia 12:37, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Where is the requirement or policy on Commons that says that because the image has a CC licence, Commons must host it. Too many admins and others have got deletion review upside down when they assume that because there is no policy that says we have to delete it it follows that we have to keep it. Time and again you see deletion closures saying that if the image has a valid licence and is in use then and doesn't clearly break COM:IDENT then there is no valid argument to delete. This is wrong. While the consensus at a deletion discussion shouldn't be allowed to decided to keep an image that is illegal or against policy, it must surely be allowed to decide to delete an image that is legal and complies with policy. -- Colin° 13:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict)There may be remote edge cases in which a deletion may be required despite policy compliance. In any other case, yes, it does follow that we have to keep it, otherwise policies etc. are just nonsense. For sure "uploader changed her mind" cannot be a reason to do so, because it would imply the uploader maintains more control on the image than the one allowed by the CC license. If an image is free once, is free forever. This must be as crystal clear and iron strong as possible. -- cyclopia 13:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Deletion from Commons does not change the license. It changes how easily the image spreads (which is still desirable for many editors) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• Technically correct. But a deletion from Commons on request (with perhaps the exception of a "dammit, I uploaded the wrong image, sorry" request a few minutes after upload, or similar obvious mistakes) still acknowledges exceptional control by the uploader. This makes the image "free", but on a leash. Which is not very free. -- cyclopia 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia, I agree with your arguments; which are part of the free concepts. But I don’t think raising them on every courtesy deletion request is very helpful. This is not a case like a long time established user who wants all his files get deleted; when he changed his mind. He has only a few media contributions so far, all are very recent, and all uploaded through en:wiki upload wizard. He may not even notice that they are uploaded to Commons; not to Misplaced Pages. His first visit to Commons (other than a few POY votes) was when I made a notice on his talk page regarding the FPC nomination. JKadavoor Jee 13:43, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Cyclopia, you are confusing the requirement to relicense the work under the same CC terms when copying, modification, or redistribution occur, with the fictitious notion that the CC license compels Commons to redistribute the work in perpetuity. Commons is not obligated to continue publishing works; it is only compelled to publish them under the same license terms if it does publish them at all. The decision whether or not to publish a work licensed under CC can be made for any number of reasons (one of which might be that the author does not want the work to be published at Commons), and that decision can be changed anytime; what cannot be done is revocation of downstream users' rights to continue to copy, modify, and redistribute under CC terms once they received the work from Commons. alanyst 13:49, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I am perfectly aware of this distinction. This doesn't change that, de facto, complying to such a request implies that, practically, we give the uploader a level of control that is not present in the license. We may well decide to delete something free from Commons, but setting a precedent where such a decision is made only because of a request of the uploader without extremly good reasons is noxious, because of what it implies -namely, that the uploader has a special level of control on the work. That's exactly the opposite of free content, regardless of how technically it still complies. -- cyclopia 14:09, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Absurd. Imagine that when the person uploaded the file to Commons, they also gave a copy to a friend under the same CC terms, and when they asked Commons to delete it, they also asked their friend to do so. Commons and the friend are equally free to accede to the uploader's request or to ignore it, and enjoy the exact same degree of control in their decisions. Commons does not need to be bound by precedent any more than the friend does the next time someone gives them a CC-licensed file. alanyst 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

What seems absurd to me is your analogy. A personal friend is not a public, open website hosting thousands of images that makes a point of being a repository of informative free content, run by a consensus-driven community, where anybody can see what happened before and what precedents have been set. -- cyclopia 14:45, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Indeed. And you believe we should place the free-content crusade before all else. Some of us believe there are other things equally important, such as editorial and publishing discretion, and moral concerns, even. I'd rather 'anybody' could see that we did the common sense, human, decent thing after due consideration. You never know, that might encourage more people to donate more content to a responsible host. I doubt the two points of view will ever mesh easily, so it seems tedious for us to repeat it all again, no? We can does not mean we must. Begoon  15:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm, no, it's not matter of a crusade. Nor it is a matter of "we can therefore we must". It's a matter of what does free content mean. In other words, things have to be clear for users of Commons. In the moment I see an image on Commons, and it is obviously compliant with policies, I expect to be able to use it in any way that is compliant with the requirements of the license. That's what free content means: it is something that we can relink, share, reuse, rebuild upon, while keeping only a minimum of clear obligations, because the author explicitly relinquished (most of) her/his rights on the image, and cannot complain if it happens that he does not like what I do with it. If, instead, in any moment the copyright owner can decide to change his mind, then it has never been free: it was only "on loan", something like "hey, I'll give it to you to play until I decide it's fine". And so we jeopardize the whole concept of free content. It's not matter of crusade, I am not a free-culture-Taliban, frankly (heh, I worked for closed-source companies). But if we say that is free, then it has to be free, not "free unless uploader has a change of mind". And it has also nothing to do with "decency" and "common sense". Apart from the fact that there is no such thing as "common sense", because what is "common" in my culture can be far from common in yours, there is nothing in the notion of "decency" that requires us to abide to every whim of uploaders. If there is some serious privacy or real-life complain, then decency may play a part. It doesn't with contributors that want to pick up the ball and suddenly decide that we can't play anymore - it's not their ball anymore, once under CC. I hope I made myself more clear. -- cyclopia 15:33, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

More clear, no. But you used a lot of words. I already knew where you stood. I disagree. Begoon  15:42, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Given that you said that I "believe we should place the free-content crusade before all else" -which is nonsense- I'd say that no, you know really nothing of where I stand. So you're disagreeing with some figment of your imagination, not with me. -- cyclopia 15:47, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't know much about Commons. You say we should not delete a file from our collection if the uploader has simply changed their mind. But is there a WMF directive or Commons policy that forbids it (that says we may not)? If I add a page to Misplaced Pages that no one else has added to and ask that it be removed, that will usually happen without any fuss. I'm fairly sure the licensing and ethical issues are much the same, so I'd be curious to know if the two projects' written policies are different on this issue. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

You're correct about the articles removal on WP. It should not happen as well. It is a shame it does. -- cyclopia 17:29, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I respect your right to the view that this kind of thing shouldn't happen, and your right to argue from that position. But I'm asking you, may it happen. I'm asking if it is permitted by Commons policy for a file to be deleted for no other reason than that the uploader requests it? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

To clear up, Commons has a policy that we may delete images whose uploaders have requested deletion. We do it fairly frequently actually. But we generally draw the line if the image is used on other projects. -mattbuck (Talk) 16:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I know you sometimes delete files upon the uploader's request but the only such deletion discussions I've seen have required the uploader to justify it, beyond simply requesting it. So to be very clear, if the file isn't being used on another project and the uploader gives no reason, or simply says they've changed their mind, policy permits deletion and the uploader's wish is usually respected, without them having to provide any rationale. Have I got that right? --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 18:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

It does depend on the image in question, and timing. If you ask for deletion after a few days or a month or so, then it's more likely to be granted. If the image is something that is easily replaceable and/or low quality, again, more likely to be granted. But courtesy deletions are not generally granted if the image is in (mainspace) use, and especially not if it's widely used. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:11, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I've had contact by email with Arctic Kangaroo and he's apparently well under the age of legal competence for this sort of thing anyway. So there's a good case to be made that the license has not actually been granted, period, despite whatever checkbox he may have clicked. For me, this seals it, and I've asked Wikimedia Legal to comment on the issue.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 18:51, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• |It's interesting to note that this point was made in the deletion discussion, and that one response was "if there are legal issues here, it's the WMF's lawyers who should tell us so. Not some random users who probably aren't lawyers." — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:04, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Jimbo. That's encouraging. I do a lot of image work for the project, and it's important to me that there is some common sense involved somewhere along the line. It really is important, and it's good to see. Cheers. Begoon  19:01, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Jimbo, thanks for your understanding. I will be sending you another email, hopefully by tonight (UTC+8). Cheers. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 22:46, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to pour cold water on things, but if we are saying that Arctic Kangaroo is not of legal competence to release images, then they should be globally banned and all their edits on all projects revdeled (and all subsequent revisions as derivative works). There is no difference between the CC-BY-SA the user released the image under and the CC-BY-SA they released those edits under (By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL.), other than they don't like the consequences of that particular edit. If you're arguing from a legal standpoint, then you need to be consistent and delete everything. If you argue from a moral standpoint, then the DR was already closed as keep. -mattbuck (Talk) 23:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

I have to agree with mattbuck here as well, it's all or nothing. _→AzaToth 00:08, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is actually a HUGE point in terms of Misplaced Pages and it would be nice to hear from house counsel on the matter. Bearing in mind that I am not a lawyer and don't play one on TV: in the United States, those under age 18 are not legally able to enter into a binding contract. Every single saved edit is a small contractual release of automatic copyright via Creative Commons license. If those under 18 have no legal standing to make such a release, they should theoretically retain copyright to the content they have created. They should theoretically be able to force its removal. They should theoretically be prohibited from editing until the age of legal majority. Carrite (talk) 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

But is a release into a free license a 'binding contract'? I don't think so, although I'm not an expert in USA laws. A contract normally requires two parties, but in case of releasing a file into a free license, there is no other party. Wikimedia doesn't have any contract with the author, they are just storing the text or file, after release by the author. Also after the release, the author doesn't have any binding obligations. He can even use his released work as before. Jcb (talk) 18:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I note that one of those giving you a hard time here has uploaded your image to a flickr account. That is contrary to the flickr terms of use

Don’t upload anything that isn't yours. This includes other people's photos, video, and/or stuff you've copied or collected from around the Internet. Accounts that consist primarily of such collections may be deleted at any time.

and flickr will delete the image from their site if you contact them. If you do so then I recommend that you go to the page and click the link at the bottom that says "report abuse". Choose "Other concerns" at the bottom of the list rather than "Someone is posting photos that I have taken ...". In the email explain that you are a minor and the person uploaded the image as a form of revenge in order to "teach you a lesson", add links to the Commons discussions where he did it. If you do it that way and emphasis the bullying aspect Geo Swann's flickr account and his 11,000 images will most likely be deleted, as Yahoo will not countenance bullying of minors. Alternatively you can click the "copyright/ip" link bottom right of the page and just get the one image deleted. John lilburne (talk) 23:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

• We might wish to get legal to review this; this is certainly something that has huge potential to change Wikimedia. If no one who is not of legal age has legal competence to free license their work, that would of necessity include text as well as images. That being the case, I have a hard time seeing how Wikimedia could continue to allow anyone not yet of legal age to edit anything on Wikimedia. If that were so, I'd presume it would have to lead to some sort of identity confirmation of logged in users, and the end editing by users who have not logged in. (IMO this might in the long run do more good than harm, but it certainly would be a major change.) -- Infrogmation (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, we need legal to review the wider implications of this issue, not just the limited question of whether this file should be deleted from Commons as requested by Arctic Kangaroo (AK).

First, is it sensible to keep the image hosted on Misplaced Pages (as AK wants) if the reason for deleting it from Commons is that AK wasn't legally competent to license it freely?

Second, what should be done with other images uploaded to Misplaced Pages by AK?

Third, do we similarly need to delete AK's other edits to Misplaced Pages and other WMF wikis? If AK isn't legally competent to license images freely, would the same be true of text contributions?

Fourth, what should we do about potential future edits by AK? Are blocks on all wikis required until AK is old enough, or until we have OTRS confirmation of his parents' or guardians' agreement to freely license his contributions?

Finally, what are the implications for edits and uploads by other people, including those who we suspect may be under 18, and those for whom we have no idea (including people who aren't signed in)? --Avenue (talk) 03:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't presume to speak for Jimbo, but my take on it is that the only precedent we would be setting is that of having respected the wish of a contributor not to host his image any more, and taking into account that he may not have fully understood the rigidness of the terms he agreed to when uploading it. There don't seem to be any licensing implications - anyone who acquired the file under the license offered is unaffected - we just agree to not host the file any more out of consideration for the users wishes. Sure, people will cry "slippery slope", because that's the way of it here, but I think it does us no harm to be seen as responsive to a reasonable request from a good faith contributor. Opinions will, of course, differ. I wouldn't still be contributing images to this site or Commons at all if the rules had been rigidly enforced in a recent deletion discussion which I initiated (although that was more complex, with other reasons to delete), so feel free to see my point of view as "involved". Begoon  04:09, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I'd be a lot happier granting such a request if I believed that he had good reasons for making it, that he now understood the implications of the licenses he has agreed to, and that he wouldn't be making such requests without good reason in the future. Keep in mind that this is very different from a prompt request to remove an unused image that was uploaded mistakenly. The image is used on several projects and has been promoted as an FP on both WP and Commons, after review by several editors.

But the fact that he wants us to remove the image from Commons while keeping it on Misplaced Pages seems to show that he still doesn't understand the license he applied to the image (or the aims of our movement more broadly), and that he doesn't really have good reasons for its removal. (That's not to say that there aren't good reasons, such as his being a minor, just that he didn't present them in his request.) If we do decide to delete it from Commons, it won't simply be to fulfil his request, but because of these other reasons, and I think the consequences should extend at least as far as also removing it from Misplaced Pages. I also have trouble understanding why we'd want to risk keeping AK's other uploads unless he changed his tune dramatically. If you think that means I'm crying "slippery slope", so be it.

The implications for his other contributions are messier, and I don't claim to fully understand them, but I would certainly like some legal input on the issues. I'm concerned we could create a lot of unnecessary trouble for ourselves later if we don't. --Avenue (talk) 05:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

he still doesn't understand the license he applied to the image - that is the issue. He doesn't understand the licence, and isn't legally competent to enter into a irrevocable agreement. In any other situation if an organisation were to maintain that a U16 was to be held to a contract there would be a page on this site about it. The concerns expressed about his other contributions are ill founded as it is highly unlikely that any of his written article work will be copyrightable. Spelling, grammar, and punctuation fixes rarely rise to the level of obtaining copyright status. I'll note in passing that Geo Swann has wisely removed the image from flickr. John lilburne (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The comments he made here are certainly eligible for copyright. There is no substantive difference between text and images. It is my view that if we accept that (even just under Singaporean law) minors cannot release things under CC, then at the very least Arctic Kangaroo must be banned from all WMF projects, and we should probably follow suit with everyone else who may not be legally compos mentis. -mattbuck (Talk) 08:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The retention of comments here and elsewhere most likely falls under fair use. They aren't being sold, they aren't being used to promote the site, the chances of anyone putting his comments onto a tea towel, or mug is remote. No the issue is with media files, and your insistence that they be kept against the wishes of a child, who clearly wanted them to be used solely on WP. It is your, and others, grasping nature that is the real problem here Matt. 62.49.31.176 (talk) 11:35, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

I think it best to wait till we get the legal answers before speculating on the consequences both for AK and other child users -- I would hope Jimbo and WMF are considering the consequences too and not just one butterfly photo. But regardless of whether the licence is valid, I think we should appreciate that children-users are more likely to misunderstand/make mistakes and so we should be more sympathetic in our handling. While AK's behaviour has made it difficult to be sympathetic (myself included), we should rise above this rather than let it anger us to being stubborn. Mattbuck mentions courtesy deletion but it appears Commons has no written policy on the matter (that I can find) -- so I suggest we consider documenting this area in the Commons deletion policy pages. Colin° 11:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

@Everyone in this discussion except Jimmy: My text contributions have been OK so far. It's just a misunderstanding of the whole CC thing that made my image contribution bad. Anyway, as long as I learn and fully understand any licence before uploading anything again, then it's absolutely fine right? Blocks are for prevention, not punishment. I've already promised to learn up those stuff, am I not right? Anyway, you guys don't understand the situation fully. Almost everything I need to say is stated in my email to Jimmy and you can ask him if you like to understand the full situation. Anyway, I'm never uploading anything to Commons again. You have my word on that. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:18, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

This is prevention. If you are not legally competent to release images under free licences then you cannot be allowed to upload anything on Commons, and any significant textual contribution is similarly unallowable as they are under a similar licence. -mattbuck (Talk) 14:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI, I have no complaints about my text contributions being used. Images are things that I treasure, and thus are very picky about it. Although that doesn't mean I don't value the articles I create. However, I am actually more open (more accurately, 大方) when it comes to articles. ✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:34, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

That you value text and images differently is completely irrelevant - if we accept the argument that as a minor you were not legally able to release images under CC licences, the same is necessarily true of your text contributions. As I said earlier, this is the difference between legal reasons and courtesy reasons - courtesy can be applied to different contributions differently, but legal reasons must be applied to all contributions equally. -mattbuck (Talk) 15:29, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

--✉→Arctic Kangaroo←✎ 14:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm. I've spotted this discussion via another user's talk page, and it raises a question from me; if it is ruled that minors are not competent to understand licenses and thus their Commons uploads are invalid, what happens when a user uploads something as a minor, this change comes in, but they're no longer a minor? This doesn't affect me (I didn't upload anything before I turned 18), but it definitely is an interesting problem, at least in my eyes. Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 15:10, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Your pictures are wonderfully fine, AK. It's good to be charitable and donate such vivid, well-shot images to Commons. What's frustrating you? Because of some miscommunication and misinterpretation of licensing, we have landed into some mambo jumbo about the competency of minors and legal rights, stuff like that. Wiki-drama indeed. Good luck, AK. ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:30, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I think for this case we should disregard whatever license AK has chosen. As a minor, holding him at fault for not understanding all these legal licenses is like letting him stand trial in court. What a dilemma -- if the pictures were removed for him being a minor, what happens to the textual contributions? ☯ Bonkers The Clown \(^_^)/ Nonsensical Babble ☯ 09:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• The text contributions and media contributions of own works are entirely different.

Text contributions: Help:Introduction_to_referencing/1: “One of the key policies of Misplaced Pages is that all article content has to be verifiable. This means that a reliable source must be able to support the material. All quotations and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged must include an inline citation of a source that directly supports the material. This also means that ‘’’this is no place for original work’’’, archival findings that have not been published, or evidence from any source that has not been published.” So what?

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing: “The following list sets out some basic things that you should think about before you apply a Creative Commons license to your work. 1. Make sure your work is copyrightable. 2. Make sure you have the rights.

Here you are only developing an article with third party contents that are verifiable in reliable source. That source is not owned by you; so you can’t grant any rights that you don’t have.

So what may be the text “By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, and you irrevocably agree to release your contribution under the CC-BY-SA 3.0 License and the GFDL. You agree that a hyperlink or URL is sufficient attribution under the Creative Commons license. “ above the “Save page” button mean? Probably it means that you have to ensure that the contributions you made are freely available in a reliable source. I can’t see any problem in such edits by a person below Age of consent as far as the edits are not harmful for this project. (Disclaimer: I’m not an article editor; my area of expertise is photography. So this is my limited understanding on this topic. Correct me if I’m wrong.)

Media contributions of own works: Here you owned the media you created. You hold the copyright irrespective of your age. But can consent of a person below Age of consent to grant/give-away his rights can be considered as a valid consent? No; probably. Hope legal team will answer it. JKadavoor Jee 16:18, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Er, no, text contributions are not "contributions you made freely available in a reliable source", that would mean we could only ever reference anything which was freely licensed. And furthermore, you can have copyright on third party contents which are verifiable to reliable sources, since you make deliberate compositional choices. The FACTS cannot be copyrighted, but your presentation of them can be. -mattbuck (Talk) 19:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes indeed. Many of AK's text contributions would be above the US's low threshold of originality, and we need them to be freely licensed to continuing hosting them. This doesn't apply to uncreative edits such as fixing typos or simple reverts of vandalism, but I think it probably applies to most posts of new content or commentary as long as a sentence. --Avenue (talk) 21:14, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, Mattbuck and Avenue for correcting me. I’m not fully convinced; but my knowledge about page editing is limited, as I stated above. JKadavoor Jee 02:48, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Note: AK got blocked from Wikimedia Commons yesterday (not by me, but I fully support it), due to disturbing editing and also due to the very dangerous Jimbo Wales comment. ("I've had contact by email with Arctic Kangaroo and he's apparently well under the age of legal competence for this sort of thing anyway. So there's a good case to be made that the license has not actually been granted, period, despite whatever checkbox he may have clicked."). Following Jimbo in this very weird comment, would endanger the entire project. I hope WMF will not delete the files, because that means that any user can get his licenses revoked by convincing Jimbo Wales of a low age. And we know how accurate Jimbo can judge people. Jcb (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not really; that seems only a procedural block; as commented by Russavia there. JKadavoor Jee 17:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It was more than just procedural. Yesterday AK removed the featured awards from his butterfly then attempted to change the licence terms to "all rights reserved". That is "disturbing editing" and a sign he still doesn't get it. Colin° 17:21, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmm; it seems he is too young to understand anything. :( But I can’t see any point in Jcb’s bla bla bla. JKadavoor Jee 17:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Entire story. JKadavoor Jee 17:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Is the Russavia person that blocked Arctic Kangaroo on Commons, a friend of the Mattbuck person? Has there been any dispute between this Russavia person that blocked Arctic Kangaroo, and Jimbo who has exchanged thoughtful emails with Arctic Kangaroo?

What is the status on English Misplaced Pages of Russavia? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Such things don’t matter; I think. He is a 'crat on Commons; so he has every right to make a procedural block till they get a reply from WMF-legal. JKadavoor Jee 02:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• AK formally changed his mind on 27 July 2013; which is valid per Geoffbrigham. commons: Commons:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive_28#Underage_uploaders: “WMF does not have liability on this issue for the reasons stated above and because we are only a hosting company. On the contract issue, the answer depends a lot on the jurisdiction at issue, but, as a general rule, a minor may make a contract in the same manner as an adult. However, a minor usually may disaffirm a contract during minority or within a reasonable time afterwards.” So Denniss’ attempt to revert it is totally illegal. Now Commons is risking in the act of encouraging piracy; as anybody can now reuse that file even outside WMF projects. JKadavoor Jee 03:46, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • I don't think it fair or proper to accuse Denniss of illegal actions. As is pointed out frequently, a copyright licence is not a contract so I do wonder if Geoffbrigham's comments are actually relevant or worded appropriately (because it appears "contract law" is quite specific to contracts, and here we are dealing with "property law"). Maybe it makes not difference, and a minor can "disaffirm" a licence too. The CC licence states "Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright) license to exercise the rights in the Work as stated below" (my bold). If such a licence, issued by a minor, really means "Licensor hereby grants You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, provisional (until I grow up) licence to exercise the rights or the Works as stated below" then we have to wonder if this is any use to us. It might suite BBC News to show a picture for a day, but we'd like a bit more permanency, and it would indeed be a problem for wiki text. None of this, however, requires Commons/Wikipedia to perpetually host the image, nor does it prevent us to choose to delete the image. -- Colin° 07:54, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Neither party challenges the absolute right of a minor to disaffirm a contract for the purchase of items which 245*245 are not necessities. That right, variously known as the doctrine of incapacity or the "infancy doctrine," is one of the oldest and most venerable of our common law traditions. See: Grauman, Marx & Cline Co. v. Krienitz, 142 Wis. 556, 560, 126 N.W. 50 (1910); 2 Williston, Contracts sec. 226 (3d ed. 1959); 42 Am. Jur.2d Infants sec. 84 (1969). Although the origins of the doctrine are somewhat obscure, it is generally recognized that its purpose is the protection of minors from foolishly squandering their wealth through improvident contracts with crafty adults who would take advantage of them in the marketplace.

The above is from a decision by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin. Is a copyright license a contract? Well the Creative Commons License considers that it is. John lilburne (talk) 21:44, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That's not a statement that CC consider their licence a contract, more that if someone does consider it a contract, these would be the terms. Whether it being considered contract is their intention is hard to determine. We need clear wording from legal that they are considering the issues with copyright licences (such as CC) not not some general statement about contracts. And they should also think about the rather unusual mixed-authorship issues that wikitext gives us. Colin° 07:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The best thing for AK to do would be to send a DMCA takedown to WMF. Then they can decide whether they want fight a child over the issue. John lilburne (talk) 11:22, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

systemic problems evident

{{RfC}}

Look countless articles such as (11452) 1980 KE stand in violation of WP:NASTRO/WP:GNG! What's to be done? Please every/anyone, your thoughts? Chrisrus (talk) 17:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• It seems the last of our problems. A concerted effort to merge all of them in appropriate places would be nice, and I'd be glad to help if there are instructions, sure. But it hardly seems to me that these little stubs endanger the encyclopedia or make it substantially worse. -- cyclopia 17:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Does Misplaced Pages have notability standards or not? Chrisrus (talk) 18:23, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

It may help to watch this short video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJsUDcSc6hE. Imagine if each dot were an article on Misplaced Pages. Chrisrus (talk) 18:35, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've nullified your RfC template above -- please do not restore it. It is not appropriate to do an RfC on Jimbo's talk page. Instead, please do the RfC at possibly Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy or some other more appropriate venue, but not here. It is appropriate to talk about it here, but not to do an RfC. Rgrds. --64.85.214.168 (talk) 18:47, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I've already done that; the Astronomy community would rather leave this problem under the rug. The question at this point is, if informed about the problem, the rest of the community agree. Do we have notability standards or not? Chrisrus (talk) 18:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Not commenting on the question of whether this is a problem or not; just commenting on where to do the RfC. If a local consensus at WP:Astronomy decided one way, and you believe an overriding policy/guideline is being violated, then take the RfC to the main GNG talk page. This is just one (anon) editor's opinion, and someone else might have better advice than I. Rgrds. --64.85.214.168 (talk) 19:07, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Also, it is not a problem: it is a matter of some boring cleanup. No need to create drama about it, just quietly merge the articles and redirect them. Oh and I would love to see an article on each of those dots, in theory -if only we had enough RS for each one of these. We are not made of paper after all...-- cyclopia 19:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

How? How would this clean up be done? We need at least the beginnings of the outline of a plan. Bots will be needed, but they must be given the right instructions.

If you want to see one of something for each of these dots, it was decided long ago that it be an entry on the List of minor planets, not articles. Let's not re-hash the long settled idea (see WP:NASTRO that these articles should ever have been created. The only question now can we get rid of them. Chrisrus (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

• Which "Astronomy community", exactly, is being attacked here? --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you used the word "attack". If you would go Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Astronomy and ask about cleaning up all these NASTRO-failing articles, you will see what I am trying to say. If I'm wrong and you don't, that'd be great, but I think you'll see what happens when one takes this problem there. Chrisrus (talk) 19:53, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I see no recent posts of yours there. Could you link where you talked with the wikiproject about this issue? -- cyclopia 19:59, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Search the archives for my name. brb.... Chrisrus (talk) 20:03, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this. Looks like they were quite supportive. -- cyclopia 20:08, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I'm back. Here is some of it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_22#Straw_poll:_Automated_stub_redirection, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Astronomical_objects/Archive_21#Notability_.28astronomical_objects.29_promoted_to_guideline. We started in that direction and it was blocked. Chrisrus (talk) 20:36, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, you didn't mention your aim is to have a mass redirection bot for the stubs, that you know will have collateral damage. User:Christopher Thomas explained quite clearly in the discussion why that is not going to fly. The stubs, while not formally GNG/NASTRO perfectly compliant, are basically harmless to the project, while your proposed bot would almost surely damage articles on notable objects. If you want to redirect stubs one by one, after applying a healthy dose of WP:BEFORE, nobody is stopping you. But such a proposal is dangerous. You can't complain it didn't work. -- cyclopia 20:56, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I thought I had been perfectly clear from the beginning that the problem is countless articles represented by a few that I presented. After I was so clearly told at that link there to expect no cooperation from getting rid of these NASTRO violators, I went directly to the good folks at WP:BOTREQ and together with many helpful people there proved that it can, in fact, be done with bots, even safely following all instructions at NASTRO for a "good faith effort" to establish notability for articles that do not do that for themselves. Which, as I read GNG is not how it's supposed to work, but we obediently stepped through every notability check NASTRO asks for. We made substantial progress until at the last moment of the first round of deletions/re-directions to List of minor planets, Rich Farborough was blocked from using bots. I couldn't pick up the pieces and continue without his help, but we did nevertheless prove that those at the Astronomy project who said it couldn't be safely done with bots were wrong. And please don't believe that someone going through deleting them all by hand is any kind of solution; this can only be done with bots or not at all. It can be done safely with bots and I can prove it, see http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search?search=chrisrus&prefix=Misplaced Pages%3ABot+requests%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search . Chrisrus (talk) 21:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You have been perfectly clear that the problem is countless articles, you weren't perfectly clear you were proposing mass redirection bots. Thanks for clarifying this part of the story now. It looks like your "good faith effort" is an automated search on http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/sbdb.cgi for references. However this doesn't prove that the folks at WP Astronomy were wrong. It only proves that you found a possible and relatively clever shortcut, which however cannot substitute human hand, in my opinion. Granted, you could do something similar also looking on Google Scholar, for example, and have a very good case for little or no notability. However, again, the point is that with 10K+ articles, this kind of bot thing is doomed to fail somewhere, redirecting (and effectively killing) an article which instead could have stayed (Hypothetical-but-meaningful example: The title of the article has some special character that the bot/the JPL website does not handle correctly, so it returns zero references -because it can't find the object- where instead maybe there are). And all of this would bring little advantage to the project, overall, while being at risk of killing stubs deserving to be kept.

You mis-characterize the "good faith effort" procedure we followed in Nastro. There were more searches than the one you mention. That was just one phase NASTRO requires. It was done not with one bot but several separate phases, to find articles that couldn't possibly establish their own notability, then to remove from that list all those that returned hits on one data base after another, and then to delete/redirect the remainder. I didn't do anything, just pointed the botreq guys to the requirements at nastro one by one and they followed it after discussing it among themselves in careful conversation. You seem to be saying that the whole good faith effort to establish notability, (which, I'll note again, shouldn't be necessary if an article can't do that itself) was "mine" somehow; it wasn't. There was no risk of deleting articles that were notable. Chrisrus (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, it is also true that such an article can be quickly recreated, if evidence of notability pops out. But I still see a lot of effort (bot writing, debugging, checking, getting consensus, etc.) and no final advantage to Misplaced Pages. Guidelines like GNG are not meant to be robotically followed no matter what. Guidelines are meant to be followed as long as they improve the project. In this case, it seems that fanatical pruning to comply formally with GNG is not helping Misplaced Pages in any sensible way, while the solution could be problematic. -- cyclopia 21:29, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I suppose these articles don't harm the project as long as people don't know they exist. Chrisrus (talk) 22:31, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Just because it would inconvenient or hard to do a cleanup manually does not mean a bot must be created. If someone wants to delete the articles so badly then they should find the time to do it themselves and not create more problems for others to have to clean up after their bot. As an aside, I hope this brings some attention to the guideline of NASTRO, as I read it I had to scroll to the top just to keep reminding myself it is labeled a guideline and not an essay; as guidelines go it is written poorly, like someone trying to convince someone of something other than to lay down some guidelines that would guide someone to follow established policy (kinda what guidelines are meant to be right? Guides for specific sections or exceptions or flesh something out that an overarching policy couldn't be in depth about).Camelbinky (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree with some of what you say, but please understand that it's impossible to do all this by hand. I hope you won't make me find it, but the numbers were crunched and it was absurdly time consuming. Put it out of your mind, it's just never going to happen without bots, and the botsmen at botreq have proven that they can do it. see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Special:Search?search=chrisrus&prefix=Misplaced Pages%3ABot+requests%2F&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search Chrisrus (talk) 22:38, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

That a bot can be done does not mean it should be done, or that the community wants it done. All these discussion show is that yes, you can make a bot that can take care of some edge cases, while being at risk of killing false positives, and you need a firm consensus to do that. I highly doubt you can make a bot that looks for sources and weighs their coverage to see if the subject complies with WP:GNG as a human does. And no, it's by no means "impossible" to do by hand: just slow. But we have no deadline, and this is not a pressing concern. -- cyclopia 11:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Those botsmen just put the name of the object through the two databases that Nastro asks that they be put through, and eliminated from the list those that reproduced any hits. This, NASTRO says, establishes non-notability. Therefore, there is no need to worry about "killing" (please, no drama) false positives. The firm consensus for this is WP:NASTRO.

In the sense that the laws of physics don't rule it out, to do this all "by hand", i.e.: without bots, is not technically impossible. It is impossible in practical terms. The problem is, when you do the math, it turns out to be impossible in practical terms because it would take zillions of man hours and so, after you look into it, is just not an option. It's not reasonable. Put it out of your mind, it's never going to happen that way. It's bots or not at all.

As to whether it should be done, or whether the community wants it done, community consensus in the form of GNG and NASTRO are clear that it should and that we do. However, when it comes down to talk pages and such, however, you are right: there is a lot of evidence that many people would like to see those ignored, or that when the community wrote those things, they didn't really mean it, or that since that time, they have had a change of heart, or something. Chrisrus (talk) 15:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, but can you explain what do you mean by "the two databases that Nastro asks that they be put through"? Notability doesn't work like that. Notability requires reliable sources anywhere, not just in two databases. Do your hypothetical bots look in Google News/Scholar/Books, for a start? Whatever WP:NASTRO says (and I can't find, at a glance, what databases you're talking about), it still does not replace WP:GNG, it accompanies and clarifies it for a subset of articles.

About the practicalities of doing it by hand, I am sure it takes a huge amount of time. So what? It's not like we have a deadline. Anyway, the point is not that the community "had a change of mind", the point is that guidelines are not meant to be followed robotically. They're meant to give everyday advice on how to make the project better. You still have to prove that this particular application of the guideline makes the project any better, while there are plenty of reasons to think it can make it worse (or, at best, equal but with a lot of time/resources spent). -- cyclopia 16:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It strikes me that what needs fixing is the policy, not the abundance of articles. The reasoning " arbitrary astronomical objects are unlikely to be visited or run across by a general reader of Misplaced Pages. Therefore..." is flagrantly wrong. Misplaced Pages articles should be written to serve the general reader - as one constituent. But for any given article there is one future reader with a specific purpose, need, and fate who is as important as all the other readers put together. Misplaced Pages articles should serve not only the general reader, but the student, the expert, the scientist, etc. We should aspire to have a complete catalogue of all objects with generally recognized names, without any holes in it. Wnt (talk) 14:44, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly endorse your general viewpoint, and the reasoning in WP:NASTRO brings a lot of facepalms here too. But in this case, to be fair, many of these bodies have no coverage whatsoever apart from an entry in a database with some orbital parameters. It is entirely reasonable to merge them in a list including the little information available on them: no information is actually lost. But surely it is not something that deserves a crusade: it is just a boring matter of tidying up. -- cyclopia 15:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Please don't dramatize things with terms like "crusade". This is a project to bring Wikipedian reality in line with our guidelines and such, that is all. Chrisrus (talk) 15:07, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry if the wording concerned you. However this is not a "project", this is more of you complaining in several places and doing clumsy things like putting bad CSD tags or writing "Leadership needed!" like if WP could force editors to clean up your pet peeve. This may be not a crusade, but for sure it seems an obsession of yours. And while being "in line with our guidelines" may make sense, again, it is still unclear, what advantage to the readers this "project" would attain, and if it justifies the required time investment. -- cyclopia 15:47, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

First of all, please be more civil. This is not about me adding the wrong CSD tag or other such things. I'm sorry I added the wrong CSD tag and such, please get passed it. The issue is these articles and how to deal with them and any related problems there might be with NASTRO and GNG, and so on. There is nothing wrong with anyone asking for leadership on any issue or "complaining", even in several places. The fact that I occasionally address this issue does not constitute an "obsession" and even if it did, that's no argument against someone doing things on Misplaced Pages, because much of Misplaced Pages is created by people who could be said to have an "obsession" with this or that. Cleaning up all these Nastro/GNG violators surely is a "project". I will address myself to your valid points soon, but break a bit in the hopes that you can calm down. If you are just can't get passed your anger and present only valid evidence and reason, you might need a wikibreak or something, or just quit responding to this issue, I donno, it's up to you. I will address myself to the valid parts of your argument soon. Chrisrus (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

(Cont.) I have freely admitted on a number of occasions that I am not the ideal person to be leading this or being involved in it in any way. I would love nothing more than to walk away from it and never look back if only I had any reason to believe it would otherwise be taken care of. I don't have the technical skills, that's true, and so should not and will not do any of the actual work myself. That's what WP:BOTREQ is for. Here is what I think we should do: Go back to botreq and ask them for a full list of Minor Planet stubs that do not establish their own notability. We need a count, to see how big a problem this potentially is, and then move ahead from there. I would hope that someone else would do this, but I don't see any sign of that. I'm sorry it has to be me, but here we are. I will report back here when it's done. Don't worry, we're just counting and making a list, that is all. Nothing will be done yet. Chrisrus (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2013 (UTC)See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Misplaced Pages:Bot_requests&curid=912023&diff=566380577&oldid=566380373

Chrisrus, I'm sorry if I seem uncivil to you, but I honestly feel I didn't say anything uncivil. Nor I am angry or what. Anyway, accept my apologies. In all this discussion I am basically very calmly telling you that there is nothing to worry about. Again, you want to do that cleanup? That's great! Be bold, go ahead and make the redirects, now that you know how to do them. If you want to ask for a bot making a list, and just a list, of targets for cleanup, also go ahead, nobody is stopping you. But it's a bit naive (and I'm saying this without any animosity or insulting intent, I'm just stating facts) to think that any "leadership" action can be taken by Jimbo or anybody else about this. Misplaced Pages works by consensus, and it is run by volunteers. If this sort of cleanup does not make other editors interested, your only chance is to do it yourself. And if it takes too much time, well, we're not in a hurry, are we? -- cyclopia 09:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

--- JW: The problem is this: What do we do when Wikipedians, and there are many of these, who don’t agree with notability requirements, manage to get around them by fait accompli: setting a bot to create so many GNG violating articles before it can be stopped as to make it, in practical terms, impossible to undo by hand; blocking efforts to undo them with bots; and blocking any discussion of or progress toward undoing it by all kinds of tactics.

Tactics I have seen often have included including hand-waving, foot-dragging, obfuscating, putting in WP:NASTRO heavy burdens on us to prove the articles are not notable instead the other way around, mischaracterization of the other’s arguments, more hand-waving, prematurely closed straw polls, arguments ad nausium, personal attacks, even hysteria, whatever it takes, to get rid of Misplaced Pages's article notability requirements invalid as a fete compli.

What do we do in such cases, Jimbo? Because it’s not just asteroids, although that’s what I’m limiting myself to. The asteroids are just one example. Every star in the universe is another I’m aware of.

My solution is this: let these people, and there are very many of them, instead of the above, get enough consensus from the general community to get rid of notability guidelines first. Then go ahead and create such articles on non-notable things, and to stop block their deletion not now but sometime after the article notability requirements have been removed. Would you agree with that? Chrisrus (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

putting in WP:NASTRO heavy burdens on us to prove the articles are not notable instead the other way around - Sorry, Chrisrus, but if you want to delete something you are required to check before. Rememember that our notability requirements never ask for sources to be in the article already (the only exception being for BLPs), they just require for them to be available somewhere. Of course is a reasonable search does not find any, then you can argue for deletion, and most probably get it. But articles with notability issues have to go to WP:AFD or, at worst, WP:PROD, and you are not supposed to mass-prod/mass-afd stuff without such checks. The issue is not with the notability guidelines, which are fine: the issue is that you can't take shortcuts around the notability checks. -- cyclopia 11:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Are we ready of this:

I thought of a simpler way to ask this:

Suppose someone gets a hold of a database of every object in the known universe and starts creating articles for each of them with super-fast bots.

Are we ready for such a thing? What'll we do? Chrisrus (talk) 18:34, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

That would get picked up almost immediately by new page patrollers. If it is an unapproved bot, it will be blocked in short order. If it is approved, then there would already be some level of consensus that it is a desirable task. Resolute 18:52, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ok, questions, then. First, how, then, did countless (5796)_1978_VK5-type articles get around that?

Second, can anti-NASTRO/GNG people block the shut down? Or does the existence of WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG trump the existence of their opposition?

Next, given that tons of (5796)_1978_VK5-type articles do get through, how will they get cleaned up? It's such a huge and thankless task under current rules, how can it be streamlined? Chrisrus (talk) 19:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Most probably these articles were created before WP:NASTRO. -- cyclopia 11:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

qui vive

See Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Tea_Party_movement/Proposed_decision where a bunch of people who were added to the case on 16 July (yep - less than two weeks ago!) are now proposed for "topic bans" in a really strange "motion for final decision" where zero evidence has been presented about them at all, where they have not been given rational notice that such an idiotic decision would be proposed, and where, in some cases, their efforts have been to reach compromise in the first place, and now see that ArbCom thinks no good deed should go unpunished, and where, since they seem unable to actually rationally discuss what should be done, they simply invoke the Massacre at Béziers as justification. If this is "arbitration" than I am Pope Francis. Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Could you be more specific so that I can study this more quickly? Who was added on 16 July? Can you point me to a diff where Massacre at Béziers was given as justification? (The word 'massacre' does not appear on the page you linked to at all.

Finally, could you please relax and tone down the hostile language? It's very unhelpful and leads me to doubt the validity of your concerns. "idiotic decision", "ArbCom thinks no good deed should go unpunished", "unable to actually rationally discuss" - these are all content-free insults that do not help me to understand the situation at all. Just state the facts in an NPOV fashion, and include diffs where appropriate to prove specific points that you think I might find surprising or unlikely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:04, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I was added on 16 July to the case, along with some others. . Two were added on 26 July (three days ago) . The "motion" was posted today . It states:

Although the Committee does not feel comfortable adopting findings and remedies blaming specific named editors for the ongoing problems with the Tea Party movement article, it also concludes that it would not be appropriate simply to dismiss the case without action. The case was accepted for arbitration after community-based efforts to address the issues proved insufficient, and as noted above, an extraordinary effort at mediation during the case itself was also unsuccessful. Nor would it be sufficient to only authorize ArbCom-based discretionary sanctions on Tea Party movement and related articles. While discretionary sanctions, as a continuation of the existing community-based sanctions, are certainly in order, to impose them as the sole remedy would simply deflect the issues from this case only to the already overburdened Arbitration enforcement noticeboard and administrators. The Arbitration Committee's "at wits end" principle reflects that in intractable situations where other measures have proved insufficient to solve a problem, the Committee may adopt otherwise seemingly draconian measures, temporarily or otherwise, as a means of resolving the dispute. We conclude that this is one of the rare cases in which it is necessary to invoke this principle.

It then lists willy-nilly editors who were added less than two weeks ago, and as recently as three days ago, in this soi disant "draconian" solution. Such editors are not only the subject of any evidence at all, they have not even been given a rational opportunity to present evidence. The article I cited is the source of "Kill them all, God will know his own." which is the apparent precept being followed here. I spent a great deal of effort seeking to be a moderating influence - and the thanks I get is a topic ban <g>. I consider decisions made to topic ban fofolks sans any evidence being presented and not allowing "the accused" to present evidence is not in accord with past Misplaced Pages practice nor policy, and stretches the ArbCom remit beyond the breaking point utterly. If the committess makes no findings, has no evidence, and agrees on no remedies, then adopting this extreme (the committee states "draconian") solution is something Raleigh would write about as a "sharp remedy but a sure one for all ills" . I humbly suggest that such a system for an Arbitration Committee is unwise, and will not serve Misplaced Pages. Cheers. Collect (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It seems that the Committee went to great lengths to explain that the remedy doesn't imply fault on the part of any specific editor, but rather a collective failure of this particular group of editors to make constructive progress. I don't think this is an ideal solution, but it's a reasonable choice among several unappealing alternatives. Frankly, I don't think that being restricted from the Tea Party movement article for 6 months is akin to a massacre even in any metaphorical sense. It's not even really a punishment; more like a favor, since the editing environment there would test anyone's sanity. Surely there are other interesting areas of the encyclopedia to work on in the meantime. Hell, I topic-banned myself from Tea-Party-related articles once I got a taste of how this group of editors handled academic sources. I'll happily extend my self-ban from the Tea Party movement article for another 6 months if it will make you feel better. MastCell  18:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

The point is that there is no logical basis other than "we have no idea what the hell to do, so let's ban everyone except a couple of folks - but specifically including folks who did their damndest to solve the problem which we ain't trying to solve ourselves" for this sort of "decision" from an ArbCom which has nothing else on its plate at this point at all as far as cases are concerned. The "failure" is actually ArbCom's failure at this point - and the best decision might well be to have the entire committee resign if they can not make a rational decision based on actual evidence and not add folks at the last second to the draconian decision. Cheers -- but your "please sir" response fails mightily. Collect (talk) 19:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I haven't explored the entire rabbit hole - it appears there was something against Collect referenced in that proceeding from February ( referenced ), nonetheless, this obscure link to a diff scarcely qualifies as notice that an editor needs to make a defense when he isn't listed as a party. I remember seeing ArbCom add parties at a late date before but be persuaded to give people a later deadline to present evidence and discussion, which seems the right way to go about it. Wnt (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Look at wherein absolutely no one at all argues for such a ban. As in no one at all arguning for such a ban at all. Seems the at all part should be noted <g>. Collect (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, there was cited in - the two were from about the same time so I assume there was some relation. Still, as I said, not something you would plausibly be expected to respond to in the arbitration! Wnt (talk) 16:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't surprise me given what I've seen in the past. The core problem is an ineffective dispute resolution process on Misplaced Pages, combined with ArbCom being the final venue for this. So, ArbCom is de-facto the first and only dispute resolution venue that will impose remedies that are guaranteed to work. Any non-Wikipedian reading this would immediately draw the correct conclusion about what to expect from such an ArbCom, it's only we Wikipedians who have difficulties accepting the truth. That's why the system hasn't been reformed yet. Count Iblis (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Dismissive of criticism of Visual Editor

Greetings Jimmy, I just noticed you archived several discussions containing criticisms of VE in a rather dismissive way. This is not unlike the way its been done by other members of the staff and I have no doubt this will be archived similarly or simply deleted. I wanted to say however that there are a lot of us editors who feel that VE was poorly implemented, is not nearly ready for release and is causing far too many problems. In its current state it is a detriment to the project and should be disabled until all of the major problems have been fixed. Being dismissive of the problems or the communities concerns is not only inappropriate but disheartening to those of us who believe in the project and have devoted time to it. Some of us have stopped editing for the time being until it gets sorted out. I for one do not feel like cleaning up the WMF's mess since they feel that our time isn't important enough for a proper and thouroughly tested software release. Happy editing! Kumioko (talk) 14:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi, can you tell me what in particular you think I was dismissive about? I don't think I've been dismissive at all!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

To be fair, it's not like he archived all of them. The more extensive, detailed points were left up. I suspect he just doesn't want to have arguments in ten different threads. Adam Cuerden 14:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, I just don't think he's done yet and I don't think he wants to hear it any more than the rest of the WMF. They knew there would be criticism because the community is incapable of doing anything related to meaningful change so they are just dismissing all comments as expected. Kumioko (talk) 14:21, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

That's completely unfair, not just to me, but to the WMF.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Its not unfair at all. There are hundreds of complaints in dozens of venues. Editors have been asking for the WMF to slow down on the implementation of the VE app but all we are getting is dismissive statements. VE isn't ready for release. It wasn't a month ago when they decided to release it in an unready condition, it wasn't ready when they decided to force it on the community and force us to clean up the mess its making but you say its unfair to you and the WMF? Maybe it is, but when you and the WMF force us to use something that doesn't work and force us to clean up the mess because everyone knows it doesn't work, causes too many problems and is driving away editors, then you are being unfair to us. If you want me and other editors to be fair, then start showing us the same courtesy and listen when we say its not ready. I was a supported of the app and so were a lot of others. But we told you that it wasn't ready and you forced it out knowing it was broken, you lost that support with most of us. Now you have to earn it back. Kumioko (talk) 14:46, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

You haven't addressed how you think me closing those two threads was dismissive? One asked for a specific response, which I gave: a clear statement that wikitext is not going away. The other was a relatively content-free rant about 'hostility' - something that I'm sure you know me well enough to know I don't approve of. I have personally given no dismissive statements, and to say that "all we are getting is dismissive statements" is just really far out of line. I have been giving serious responses to serious issues, and raising them internally. I'm not being dismissive at all. Please try to set aside your anger and work cooperatively to help move things forward. Yelling and stomping your feet is what is dismissive of what other people are telling you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:53, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Kumioko. I'm hardly a supporter of how the rollout has been handled, and I see lots of concerns with what we have now. I think most people would also classify Adam as a pretty strong opponent of the way things have gone. I think it would also be fair to include Adam with me and yourself as people who'd like to see VE succeed. Jimbo does have a point here, though - at some point just wailing about how awful it all is becomes counter productive even to the people who are basically "on your side". Just my 2 cents. Begoon  15:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, thank you.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well as far as the one about hostility, I agree that you don't condone that but that wasn't what that message was trying to convey. It was trying to inform you that when the topic of VE is brought up at Wikimania you should expect a lot of angry editors commenting about how much they hate it, hate how it was forced on them and more importantly how it was implemented knowing it wasn't ready. And still isn't and won't be when Wikimania happens. Not that they would be greeting you with pitchforks and torches. Whether you agree or not or regardless of the intent, that is how a lot of editors feel right now. The WMF doesn't care about our comments nor do they respect our time. They released VE knowing it was full of bugs and expect us to clean up the mess. That was fine for a few days but now we are going over a month. I stopped editing completely for 2 weeks solely because of VE. Others did as well. Some haven't come back. Some may never come back. VE is not helping. And for what its worth I was working cooperatively when I felt that the WMF wanted our help. Now they just want us to tell them what a great job they did. That isn't the case. I don't exepect you to change your mind. But that is how many of us feel and you deserve to know that, whether you want to hear it or not. Your right Begoon, I think we do want it to succeed. But sitting in the corner and keeping quite isn't going to help either. No one is listening to our concerns, so all we can do to show them at this point is to not edit until they fix it. Kumioko (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

"The WMF doesn't care about our comments nor do they respect our time" - this is incorrect. The WMF cares deeply about comments and is very respectful of your time. Can you explain in more detail for me why you stopped editing due to VE? Be specific. Why don't you just ignore it and just click on "edit source"? No one is forcing you to use something you don't like. I can tell you that in all my conversations with board and staff about this, from top to bottom, not one person has had the attitude "Now they just want us to tell them what a great job they did". You are speaking from a place of hurt and anger. It is absolutely false to say "no one is listening to our concerns".

What I am asking people to do is be helpful in pointing out specific fixes that need to be prioritized. Simply yelling "turn it off" with an attitude of "no one cares and I hate the Foundation because they hate us" is totally out of line and not at all helpful to anyone or anything. The surest way to make sure people really do stop listening is to say such unreasoned things that are a slap in the face of good people who are working very hard on difficult problems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:10, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Maybe its false and maybe its not but that is the perception that many of us have after spending countless hours reading and contributing to discussions about this crappy VE app. I can give you several reasons why I stopped. First, the VE randomly causes problems with syntax in articles or deletes things it shouldn't. Then we editors are left to clean up the mess. Second, we told the WMF that these problems existed and VE wasn't ready. We were ignored. Third it slows down the article loading terribly even when disabled. So it takes longer to load the article. Fourth, it encourages editors to not use citations when adding content because its such a pain to add a citation. I can go on but all these and more have been mentioned repeatedly to deaf ears. You are partially correct I can ignore it and simply edit but then a lot of editors are using it and adding problems to articles that then need to be cleaned up. Many of which are IP's or newby's and don't know, or don't know why the problems are happening or what to do about them. So although I am not personally being forced to use it we as a community are being forced to clean up the mess becauase the WMF didn't want to do the right thing and slow down. There is no rush. But instead they wanted to hurry and get it out, knowing it wasn't ready, because they didn't care about our time or what we thought. Just as in other discussions you are getting defensive and trying to bloddy the victim to make it seem like I am the monster. I am a monster, no doubt about that but that doesn't make the message untrue. Kumioko (talk) 15:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Let me respond to these 4 things, but before I do, I ask again that you drop the hostile tone and that you stop repeating things that are false. There are no deaf ears and no one is being ignored. That's just an insult to people who are working very hard and being very responsive.

"First, the VE randomly causes problems with syntax in articles or deletes things it shouldn't. Then we editors are left to clean up the mess." - the empirical evidence I have seen to date shows that this is false. The rate of broken edits by newbies has not materially increased. It is easy to point to new messes made by newbies and feel outraged, but if the actual rate hasn't changed, then this is not a real problem. I invite empirical evidence to the contrary. Second, "We told the WMF that these problems existed... we were ignored" - this is just more complaining, there's nothing I can really say to respond to it. You weren't and aren't being ignored. Third, "it slows down the article loading terribly even when disabled" - this is flatly false. As it has been explained to me, there is a very marginal slowdown to download some javascript which is cached and so you should only see that slowdown (which is too small to notice) about once a week. Again, I invite empirical evidence to the contrary if you've got it. And fourth, it encouraged editors not to use citations - this is a valid concern and I'm planning to study this one further. However, for newbies, how many of them were adding cites in the first place? I don't know but again insist that this is an empirical question - if newbies or infrequent editors or experienced editors are seriously inserting fewer citations, that's a real problem that has to be solved. Finally, as an extra 5th point just for fun, I do not think you are a monster, and I'm not trying to bloody you. But if you say false or unnecessarily hostile things, I'm going to call you on it. Only through a civil and productive dialog grounded in empirical evidence can we make progress.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:30, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

So just to respond to a couple things. If I have been hostile its due to the frustration that the WMF is not listening to the community. That's not a perception, its a fact. If the WMF folks are telling you that VE isn't making bad edits and are blaming the editors, new or old, then you are being lied too. Don't take my word for it, look through the bug reports for VE. Its full of problems where VE added or removed things it shouldn't (images, infoboxes, categories, broke lists, templates, etc.). In regards to the slowdown, in fairness, it may not be VE but Parsoid or someother app that VE uses or that was released at the same time. This goes back to the poor implementation I mentioned before. So yes I might be a bit hostile but I cannot see anything I told you that was false and I'm getting tired and frustrated with the WMF's and the developors lack of connection and compassion towards the community. So if it takes me getting a little heated to get the problem addressed and corrected then I'll take the heat for that. Hell block me if you want. But fix the problem and stop ignoring it hoping it will go away. Kumioko (talk) 16:41, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Anyway, I am tired of everyone walking on eggshells and not stating what the problem is flat out. The Visual editor app has a lot of potential, but well meaninged though it may be, in its current form its a piece of crap that we don't need or want. I and many others have tried to say that in nicer ways but no one is listening so its time to be blunt. If that hurts your feelings I'm sorry but it needs to be said. Kumioko (talk) 15:25, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Kumioko, several of the things you say are valid, in my opinion. The WMF response has been sub-optimal on various occasions - and sometimes it can feel as though concerns are being dismissed or ignored. Drawing battle lines doesn't make this improve, though, on either "side". There are occasions when we need to clean up after VE errors, and it does negatively disrupt our workflow and experience - I referred to a few in one of the "hatted" sections. I also believe it would have been better to pull the VE back and regroup, and I've said as much. You're right that many people agree with the assessment you've made of the application as not ready for primetime - I'm one of them. I don't support your approach here, though, and, just on a personal level, you might want to consider how much traction this approach has ever really got for you on any issue here. Apologies if you find that too personal, but I'm prone to reacting the same way, and have to try hard not to do so too often, so I empathise and feel a little pain for your obvious distress. Begoon  15:43, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• @Kumioko. Just turn Visual Editor off. I generally agree with your observation that WMF doesn't want to hear carping about the extremely obvious fact that VE was in no way ready for release as the default editing platform, nor is it now. I agree that they are continuing to charge ahead with fingers in their ears singing "LA-LA-LA-LA-LA-LA!" really loudly so they don't hear. Just turn it off. That's all. There's no need to go on strike; so far assurances are that WikiText is going to remain indefinitely, so there shouldn't be an issue... Just.turn.it.off. Carrite (talk) 16:11, 29 July 2013 (UTC) Last edit: Carrite (talk) 16:14, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
  • The Foundation is not charging ahead with fingers in their ears singing anything. Such insulting and demeaning comments are inappropriate and unwelcome. Please be civil.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
    • In fairness Jimbo, the foundation has pretty much lost any good will it possessed with how these recent launches have gone. The comment may be demeaning, but it would be prudent to consider why people feel this way. I think Adam's point six in his lower thread applies, and that is a sentiment I share. It really doesn't feel like the foundation/devs are interested or willing to listen to concerns until basically pressured into it. To that end, I have absolutely no confidence in your statement that wikitext will remain. I trust you are being honest when you make that statement, but I don't trust the team in charge of this, based on how this has all been handled. Nor can I trust that the classic editing interface will remain. I am more worried that we'll end up with some bastardized mixture of VE with limited wikitext support that will be to nobody's advantage. Resolute 18:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

There's an interesting link in that "point 6", which led me to the section a little above in the archive: Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Feedback/Archive_2013_06#Now_unable_to_edit_sections_by_old_method. There's a statement in that section from Okeyes(WMF) which I think illustrates the disconnect between what WMF representatives have been saying and what we, as long-term users, feel is "right". He says this:

• 'I'd say that actually we shouldn't be giving new editors access to non-VE stuff if they're new to Misplaced Pages, insofar as if the end goal is "have a VisualEditor that does all the things people need to do in markup", having people be able to go "hey, I wanted to do X and can't do X" is useful so we can prioritise X, whatever that might be.'

Now this just makes me stop and read it again. To me it parses as: "we should make it pretty close to impossible for new users to perform tasks they can't do with VE, so that they have to report bugs in order to contribute, and thus we will enrol them in our compulsory 'beta test team'". Except those of us who live in the real world know this just isn't true.

A new user faced with an insurmountable task is far more likely to just go away than take the trouble to report a fault. If he does anything it will be to tell his friends that he couldn't make an edit to WP when he tried. Jimbo alludes to this tendency of new users to "run away" when it's "too hard" somewhere else on the page, and it's fairly certain that would be what a large number of these users would do.

So, VE, the supposedly easy way to edit for new users becomes just the opposite, a deterrent, and as a direct result of WMF philosophy just as much as software limitations. This 'deterrence' also seems to be largely borne out by the disappointing statistics people are quoting. I hope I explained all that OK. Begoon  05:04, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually I did turn it off. But that doesn't stop all the mistakes that need to be cleaned up or the dismissive attitude by the WMF. Contrary to what it may seem I am all too happy to collaborate and I did help initially when things were done sensibly. I was happy to help the app develop but when suggestions are dismissed or identified problems are ignored just so it can be rushed into production seemingly for no reason, I don't feel compelled to help. I believe in the project so I am sure that I will contribute outside discussions again at some point but not until either the VE is turned to opt in instead of opt out or its fixed. Neither of which seems to be anywhere in the near future. Kumioko (talk) 16:24, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Not all the mistakes it causes are for newbies either. I'm very much a non-newbie, but in trying to use VE, I just had a weird nowiki tag show up. It actually told me that occurred, but I could figure out no way to get rid of it short of just cancelling the edit. So I proceeded with that edit, and then had to do a followup edit to fix that and to remove a redlink I'd inadvertently added at the same time (which I'd not have done if just editing the source). I've been trying to give VE a fair shake, but I think I'm about done with it. LadyofShalott 17:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I turned it off as soon as I discovered that it made adding citations extremely difficult. How is that remotely useful for building content that by its nature requires complete and accurate citations? Until that's fixed (and adding citations is as intuitive as it is without VE) I won't be turning the bloody thing back on. Intothatdarkness 17:20, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

While there may be some issues with Kumioko's tone, Jimbo, his fundamental message is right. The same applies to Caritte's characterization of it as charging ahead with their fingers in their ears.

The WMF proceeded with this before analyzing the results of the A/B test, and at a time when the preliminary results of the A/B test told them that Visual Editor was a significant impediment to new editors. When the response here was profoundly negative, they proceeded with the rollout to anonymous editors anyway. When that was a profound failure (with anonymous editors rejecting VE by a 4:1 margin), they attempted to proceed with it on all others.

They are showing some lines of listening, now, by allowing the Dutch Misplaced Pages to opt-out completely and the German Misplaced Pages to go to an opt-in system. All most of us ask is the same courtesy: we've told WMF that the software is too bug-ridden and feature deficient for widespread deployment, and asked them to turn it off on English Misplaced Pages until they fix it. They show no signs of listening to that.

You want to show us that anyone is listening? Turn this off until it supports basic functionality like cut-and-paste and table editing, and doesn't shred articles that use some of our most common templates into ribbons.—Kww(talk) 17:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I can't disagree with any of that, really. To deny it mangles code unrelated to what's being edited is just wrong, and to retain it as the default editor is a mistake, until the serious bugs and basic functionality are fixed. Begoon  17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• There is an incredibly simple way of the WMF making it look like they actually give a damn about editors and their views: enable the proper "turn off VE" switch, rather than the glitchy gadget used instead. It wouldn't take them more than 5 minutes, unless the thing is so broken that even the kill command doesn't work... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 17:22, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• That's already been done. The problem is that it defaults to enabling VE instead of disabling VE.—Kww(talk) 17:28, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's - Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing Usability features (Temporarily disable VisualEditor while it is in beta) - but I agree, it should be opt-in, not opt-out at this stage. Begoon  17:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• Although I wasn't aware of this (thanks) the statement "Temporarily disable VisualEditor while it is in beta" is NOT what people are requesting; we want a proper, permanent off switch, not one the WMF can remove on their own whim by claiming "this isn't in beta any more". Especially as VE is in alpha - betas are supposed to be feature complete, or very nearly feature complete, for starters - but... Lukeno94 (tell Luke off here) 18:19, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes - I understand this was a compromise after a drawn out discussion on one of the mailing lists, where the initial response was no off-switch, then this 'compromise' was reached eventually: this is the (long) thread: . Begoon  18:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm glad that more editors weighed in and put their feelings about the WMF and VE in here. Kumiko's posts might come off as hostile but what he says has truth. I almost completely stopped editing mainspace articles after the first couple weeks of release. Shortly after that, I stopped almost editing completely, and I was on my way to a monthly high of edits. I know dozens of other editors that were exactly the same way. I'm "hostile" about this sitation for a multitude of reasons.

1. VE was enabled to every logged in user by default on July 1st. A large majority of editors reported seeing no notifications of this happening. The attitude of the WMF at the time was 'deal with it, it's here to stay'. They would respond to positive comments about the VE but either ignored the complaints or responded to them with 'deal with it', or 'not our fault'. Only after 2 weeks of people complaining and complaining that there was no notification, they finally looked into the issue and reported a potential cookie problem to blame. This is the basis for Kumiko's comments above. The negative points about VE, even with proof or valid complaints, not just 'oh, I hate change' were met with comments along the lines of 'oh well', or 'deal with it'. While they might not have used these exact words, these were how the comments felt, like the WMF was not taking concerns into consideration.
2. A software release with over 350 confirmed bugs, even a release to a massive amount of people under 'Beta', would get any software developer fired in a typical setting. Many many many people, Kumiko included, told the WMF that the VE was not ready for release, and many comments such as this weren't even responded to.
3. The javascript slowness and errors is a hot issue and I think needs to be addressed. The Universal Language Selector was released almost right with the VE, causing huge problems on every browser. Loading some larger pages slowed to a crawl with the amount of javascript.
4. More on #1 above, VE was basically crammed down everyone's throats. Only after a couple of days of extreme lash outs did the VE finally add an option to hide (not disable) the VE from the interface. This still loads the Javascript, and every so often people have been reporting it being disabled on its own randomly. It's happened to me twice where I've signed on and all of the sudden, the button is active again and I accidentally click on it (which, as Adam below mentions, it slows my PC to a crawl). This is not about change (I too, think the VE has tons of potential and can't wait to see it be usable for all of Misplaced Pages) but about the WMF playing "big brother" and forcing change upon the community, especially when the community told them it wasn't ready.
5. Coming here, I've just learned that the DE wiki has the option to disable it entirely and opt-out. I don't mind the default opt-in so much for new editors, but make it able to be fully disabled.

I know my comments may not have the most weight being a low activity editor (especially recently), but I too have had to clean up some VE mess (nowiki tags, missing formatting, blanking of pages, rearranging of content) and it's discouraging that we would have to do this. Jguy _Talk 19:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, look, um... I'm pretty sure Jimbo can look after himself, but I just want to point out that he, just today, went to my talk page and asked me to explain why just having "edit source" isn't enough. He was on holiday for the first three weeks of the VE launch. I think we should calm down a bit: He's clearly trying to listen, but he'll probably need some time. Adam Cuerden 18:42, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Well right, he was away while they rolled the thing out, the storm was supposed to have settled a bit by now, and his job was supposed to be to help smooth things out with the small minority that was still upset because they just "don't like change". The comforting line was supposed to be "hey, you can still hit the 'edit source' thingy and it's all fine, so what's the big deal?". The problems related to slow pageloads, lost edits, and those whacked-out edits that are causing grief for the RC patrollers go off-script, and Möller's deputies are neither responding in good faith to complaints about that nor are they updating Jimbo about what the real complaints are about.

It would have absolutely made sense to close Jimmy's page down for the roll-out, because it would have been flooded by goats and sheep saying "change is ba-a-a-a-ad!". I say would have because that would have been the appropriate thing if the software wasn't completely inadequate, but as chance would have it the software is junk. So now Jimmy is being put out there as the reassuring face for the broken product, which is a terrible job to get stuck with.

Give the guy some time for thoughtful assessment of the situation, and I'm sure he'll see the light. --SB_Johnny | ✌ 22:49, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Recent roll-outs

I've only been semi-active of late, so I apparently missed out on a couple seemingly large (to me) roll-outs/changes.

I read the above and see concerns about the visual editor. Maybe it's because I don't have/run java, but I don't see an option to use VE anywhere. I looked in preferences, and the boxes to disable (there are two in two separate sections) are unchecked. So I was wondering if VE went live yet.

The other one (and maybe this should be a separate thread) is that the orange message bar disappeared to be replaced by a tiny red box. Which is on almost all the time because I apparently created an article which is linked to daily (I just now found the option to turn that aspect of it off). I did some reading, and thought there was supposed to at least be a partial orange bar implemented. If it's not showing due to no java, I want to cry foul. The old way didn't require it, why should the new way? (And I fear that this will be a concern also if FLOW gains implementation as well...) Are those who do not use java going to become isolated and unable to adequately communicate or edit, much less, be able to assist others?

I realise this is several questions grouped together, but, to me anyway, they are seemingly related. - jc37 15:17, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

If you are using IE, I believe VE is currently disabled on that browser because of many of the bugs. I beleive the orange bar replacement is in gadgets as "Display a floating alert when I have new talk page messages". I'm not sure if it is javascript based, but I suspect it is, and you will still be out of luck. Resolute 15:26, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

It is Java based. They both are. Kumioko (talk) 15:27, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Javascript-based, not java. Huge difference. --NeilN 15:35, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Nod. - read "javascript and java" anywhere I'm merely stated "java". - jc37 15:52, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Why on Earth, would we rollout such a huge change without supporting the world's most popular desktop browser? This seems like a hugely bad decision (and I'm putting that mildly). A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 02:23, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I think you may be believing the hype there. For actual reader numbers, all IE at 16% is about half all Chrome at 30%. IE 6, 7 and 8 (the versions that will never be supported) add up to 6.89% of readers. IE is so insanely horrible to develop for that it does in fact require serious assessment as to whether it's worth it, but they do plan to build support for IE 10+ (4.51% of readers) once the VE basically works (which it really doesn't yet) - David Gerard (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Those appears to be numbers for only Misplaced Pages, not the world at large. I thought that one of the goals, if not the main goal of VE, was to expand our editor base. Out in the real world, IE commands 56.15% of the desktop market. And keep in mind that Chrome pre-fetches resources, artificially inflating its numbers. I'm not sure if there's a way to differentiate for actual traffic by a human being versus pre-fetching. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:00, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't use ie, and talk page notices (and the ability to edit for that matter) shouldn't require java if the old way didn't. This is and should be one of the most basic notification systems we have. Alert someone that someone just left a message on their talk page. Even if we were to strip out all the superfluous bells and whistles (and I mean everything including the watchlist) leaving us just with page histories and use contributions, that basic notification should be in place as core to the wiki environment. Are we really moving to gadgetising the interface? Is it that our current volunteers only know java these days? - jc37 15:33, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Javascript is the only way to implement something like VE natively in a browser. I've never heard of a partial orange bar being implemented. --NeilN 15:58, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Notifications/FAQ#What_happened_to_the_orange_bar_for_talk_page_messages_on_Wikipedia.3F. However, it apparently is only as a gadget. I could accept the loss of the orange bar if this was implemented, but it's only a javascript "gadget". And my concern isn't only that I would like to see this as part of the wiki software (non-js), but also the trend where it seems that most roll outs now are almost all js gadgets. Gadgets are fine for things like twinkle I suppose, short cuts for doing things that take longer the "normal way", but they shouldn't be used for fundamental things like notification. Hence my question for JW: Is it as it seems? Are we moving to a js model for the wiki? - jc37 18:02, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jc37: Virtually every major web site in the world uses JavaScript. It comes built-in to every web browser (IE, Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.) and it's use is ubiquitous. Saying that you don't want to use JavaScript is basically saying that you don't want to use the Internet. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:47, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Just to clarify, Java and JavaScript have very similar names, but are completely different technologies. They have nothing to do with one another, other than their names. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: However, progressive enhancement is considered a best practice for web development (same as its reverse graceful degradation), Javascript blocking tools are considered sensible security practices, and blocking Javascript for performance reasons may be the only way to browse the web on obsolete equipments - those likely to be used at poor regions. It's reasonable to expect on a major internet site that its core functionality will be available when Javascript is disabled; more so when the site is aimed to a universal audience. Diego (talk) 12:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages and racists

Please.Help me...

Please help me! complain because they block me from another user account. There is so much inequities in the Persian Misplaced Pages. way out except complain the Persian Misplaced Pages show me. Did not even allow my user page is edited by me., I know English Misplaced Pages here is not related to the Persian Misplaced Pages. Mr. Wales, I am asking you to help. (Translated by Google Translate)Boyabed (talk) 00:47, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

I really don't think there is anything that Jimbo or the Arbitration Committee of the English Misplaced Pages can do to address issues in another wiki, it's just simply beyond their area of affect. I believe for seriously egregious problems, something can be raised with the Stewards at http://meta.wikimedia.org/ but I'm really not clear on the parameters of when or how even they can intervene in such matters. Tarc (talk) 01:06, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi again Boyabed

Jimbo already responded when you asked the same question previously. He said that this wasn't the place to ask such a question and he'd sent you an email regarding this. I'd suggest checking your emails and taking his advice he's given you in the email. To me this looks to be a local issue which we can't help with on the English Misplaced Pages, you will need to take this up with the Persian Misplaced Pages I think--5 albert square (talk) 23:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Visual Editor RFC over the default state

There's been so much discussion of it here, I thought a pointer to Misplaced Pages:VisualEditor/Default State RFC was in order. Please be nice and respectful. Don't vent.—Kww(talk) 01:35, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Like--Amadscientist (talk) 05:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

"total anon editing of articles has fallen 9% in the two weeks since introduction (compared to the prior two weeks). During the same time period total editing of articles by registered users rose 2%.... If I were designing a research program to study VE, I would certainly make getting additional information on anon behaviors a high priority" --Robert Rohde EJM86 (talk) 03:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Verifiability and WebCite?

WebCite which is used for dead links required by Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is going to close.

without saving dead links Misplaced Pages:Verifiability is completely meanless!

when we got any offical solution for http://meta.wikimedia.org/WebCite ? (Idot (talk) 12:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Making loud noises does not prove an argument! The closure of webcite does not make WP:V any more meaningless than it was before webcite existed. Linkrot is a problem we will always have, and will always have to deal with. Resolute 14:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

what we will do with dead links as do not have any alternative ways for verification of dead links?
shall we cancel WP:V as meanless rule or what?
or you just going to wait until all dead links will really die, then say "sorry guys..."? (Idot (talk) 16:07, 25 July 2013 (UTC))

Also it should be noted that the vast majority of voters supported acquisition. I was among them. We donate and we should be able to determine how Wikimedia spends our money. — kf8 17:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

How much more do they need to raise and by when? 97.124.165.149 (talk) 16:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

They need $30k by the end of year, of which 10k is already raised. Personally, I'm very disappointed by WMF spending large amounts for meaningless activities and not supporting service which stores over 300k pages for verifiability purposes. WMF could acquire WebCite or make similar service of our own, but the Foundation is occupied with its own petty projects like VE, it's a shame! --Akim Dubrow (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Jimmy, how can mere mortals check to see whether someone has put in a FDC application for saving WebCite? 97.122.185.40 (talk) 15:05, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• Website should be supported. In the end, one of the pillars of Misplaced Pages holds, because the service operates. ADDvokat (talk) 15:22, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
• Don't acquire it, just support it. $30k is chickenfeed to the WMF - it's the kind of money they lay out to "train the trainers" so that some people in a WMxx organization can have something cool to put on their resumes (without providing a Wikiversity course for the rest of us to follow, either). That money can (a) keep them operating and (b) buy their promise to serve links to Misplaced Pages with greater reliability, to warn us if they are approaching an outage, etc. Wnt (talk) 20:25, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree completely. If this was something that the Foundation could purchase with an operations requisition, there is no question in my mind that they would pay for it to prevent service interruptions for all the outgoing links. But why can't they? Jimbo, are you going to ask the Foundation staff to cut a check to keep WebCite up? EJM86 (talk) 06:40, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

• will we get at last any offical answer?! (Idot (talk) 11:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC))

I'm glad to see the interest in this, because I think having verifiability for all is part of the mission. But I don't think seeking the fiat of Jimbo is the best way to obtain the dispersal of WMF funds. He's a board member, and there are WMF staff for these tasks. To that end, the bottom of m:WebCite has an answer given on 25 July. The points under m:WebCite#Response_from_WMF_Grants_Program need attention from the relevant parties. I have sent an email to see if there is interest in working towards a grant on WebCite's end. Biosthmors (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Reporting inappropriate images of children

Over on Commons, Jalexander has posted a notice about a new email address to be used to report inappropriate images of children. While this situation is more likely to arise on Commons than here, images may be noticed first on Misplaced Pages if such images are used in articles.

Jimbo, can you ensure that admins on all Wikipedias are informed of this new address? This would be a wonderful opportunity for someone in the legal department to put together a very brief summary of applicable laws for those who are not aware of what may be considered "inappropriate". Since laws and cultures differ, there should be a reminder that the WMF must observe the law in the US where some of the servers are located. The email address is a great first step, but the lack of guidance is an obvious shortcoming which could be easily fixed. Perhaps you can use some of your influence with the board to see that this gets addressed? Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Where can I file a bug report?

It says "Talk: You have new messages" but I have no new messages. Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:29, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

• being discussed at WP:VPT Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Mr. Wales! Inanygivenhole (talk) 21:50, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Mr. Wales undoubtedly agrees that you're welcome. :) Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:27, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

FYI

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales/Archive_137#In_reply_to_your_question

Hey, Jimbo. You said you were going to respond to this, so I'm just pinging you about it. Cheers. Adam Cuerden 10:20, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

"Evil world views"

In the previous discussion on Misplaced Pages and racism you hatted the discussion with: "We have the right and the ethical responsibility to ban people who bring evil world views to Misplaced Pages".

Care to clarify what are the "evil world views"? Sure, racism enters into it, and I agree, personally, that racism is evil. But what else? Is belonging to the Catholic church, a frankly not-so-nice towards LGBT people organization, an evil world view as well? I would say so. Who is going to decide what world views are good and what ones are evil? Is communism allowed? Anarchism? Paleoconservatism? What does Misplaced Pages consider good or evil on abortion? What about euthanasia? (An editor, User:Count Iblis, just got blocked because he made a comment in support of euthanasia, a few days ago, by the way). And what about eating dog meat?

I am asking because I'm frankly terrified of the idea that Misplaced Pages only allows people who think in a certain way to edit. Sure, I should feel safe: I am a fairly liberal, run-of-the-mill Western editor who despises racism,pedophilia,homophobia etc. But who knows what of my political or philosophical opinions will be considered evil tomorrow. You know, First they came... -- cyclopia 10:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Absolutely agree. I firmly oppose Jimbo's view that we should ban people who have a particular ideology, no matter how horrifying. I accept that editing Misplaced Pages is a privilege, not a right, but I really do not see the harm in someone on the far-right editing if they are doing so objectively and with a neutral point-of-view. — Richard BB 11:16, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Who decides? We do. Through thoughtful and kind conversation exploring the pro's and con's of drawing the line in different places, taking into account all the relevant facts. My point is that neither extreme is a viable or productive option. On the one hand is the extreme view that no matter how vile and reprehensible one behaves outside Misplaced Pages, editing is still welcomed as long as it doesn't technically break any already-written rules. On the other hand is the extreme view that only a narrow range of people of appropriate opinions can edit Misplaced Pages. We want to have diversity and thoughtfulness. Some views, though, are simply and plainly lunatic and beyond the range of reasonable, and we can and should take a very dim view of people espousing them.

In general, it's worth adding, this is a fairly academic or purely philosophical question. As a matter of empirical fact, people who hold destructive philosophies generally find themselves unable to function well in a community based on reasoned discourse. We can imagine, for the fun of a discussion, a perfectly polite and reasonable editor of Jewish history who also writes a personal blog advocating for a 2nd Holocaust, but in reality, that's extremely unlikely. Similarly, and again, I haven't looked at the specific case mentioned above, a KKK member who reasonably and thoughtfully edits is just extremely unlikely. What is more likely is a KKK member who sometimes makes minor edits in some area of pop culture trivia - and losing such an editor is not going to cause anyone, especially not me, to shed a tear. Why? Because putting out the view that we are a humane and ethical community who welcome thoughtful people is going to gain us much much better editors in the long run, than toleration of jerks.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• clap* *clap* *clap* It is OK to espouse whatever lunatic or vile view one wants. But what any mainstream organisation doesn't want is to have such espousers associated with the organisation, regardless as to whether they promulgate their views within organisation or not. Not only is it bad PR for the organisation but it also puts a burden on the organisation to be ever watchful that the espouser isn't promulgating their views within the organisation. John lilburne (talk) 12:09, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yup. What John said. Most people are, rightly, selective about the company they keep - and that extends to the volunteer organisations they choose to give their time to. Begoon  12:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fully agree with this comment and with John's. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Jimbo, the whole point is that what is "evil", "vile", "reprehensible", "lunatic", "beyond the range of reasonable" are entirely subjective opinions, that depend on the specific culture, upbringing and personal circumstances. There is almost no opinion that isn't found "evil" by some other culture. For example, in many cultures tolerance for LGBT rights would be considered as "evil", "lunatic" and "beyond the range of reasonable", while we obviously think the opposite. But we don't have to go this far. Slapping your own kids is considered horrible in many Western cultures, while not doing it is considered bad parenting in Italy, a first-world European country (even if things are changing now). What do we do with editors who in perfect good faith, in a civilized European country, nevertheless think that giving a slap here and there is a healthy thing to grow up a healthy child, and that is the majority opinion between reasonable people there? Do we ban them as evil kid beaters?

Also, you have to take into account that in some countries -again Western ones- political parties that we can consider downright "evil" represent a huge amount of people. In Italy the not-so-covert xenophobic party Lega Nord has up to 30% representation in some Northern regions. In France the far-right Front National (France) has similar percentages. Do you want to ban 30% of the population of a Western country from editing Misplaced Pages due to political views? And again, and I am dead serious, what about religions who have a staunch anti-same sex marriage position, for example? Because that's not far from racism, in my book.

Now, I'm not saying that people should be free to proudly advocate whatever they like. I understand very well that there are lines to be drawn, if we don't want to become a nasty mess, but these lines should be drawn in the sand of behaviours, not of private life positions. The day an editor endorses, on WP, explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic views, for example, I am all for showing them the door, because this would create a problem in the task of having a world-wide inclusive community of editors. But if we begin to have to look at what editors think in their spare time, this is opening the door to becoming the thoughtpolice. A tongue-in-cheek Facebook status, an out of context remark somewhere that can be twisted, would easily become weapons to remove editors from WP. You say we should not tolerate jerks. We should not. But the only way to be a jerk is to behave like one. Thinking like a jerk cannot be a crime.-- cyclopia 12:33, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Can you stick to the specific example under discussion instead of raising straw men. We are talking about the KKK here. Lynchers, murderers and espousers of hate. We all know that someone in the KKK is a nasty piece of work, no one has defended being in the KKK. We aren't talking about a random facebook post either, this person knowingly identified themselves on a neo-nazi forum as a member of the KKK and also posted what can only be described as hate filled messages. We only know what he thinks because he posted his thoughts on the internet. There is no ambiguity here. For people who keep making the slippery slope arguments; once we open our door to extremists, where does it end? IRWolfie- (talk) 13:00, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

The point that myself and Cyclopia are making is that his comments were not made to Misplaced Pages. Seemingly, his political views (and I'd argue that he probably defends being in the KKK) have not influenced his editing on Misplaced Pages (or is there something that I've missed?). Yes, he is going to be a nasty piece of work if he is a Klansman, but as long as that life is kept separate from Misplaced Pages there shouldn't be an issue. In answer to your final question: it ends when their views affect their ability to edit constructively. — Richard BB 13:15, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Exactly. Yes, he posted that stuff on the Internet, elsewhere. That's exactly what I'm talking about. He thinks stuff. He thinks what we, in our culture, subjectively, see as very nasty stuff. But on WP, he keeps it for himself. And it's not me doing slippery slope arguments, Jimbo himself escalated from "being in the KKK" to "evil world views" in general, and that's what is worrying. Nobody here should be in a position to distinguish the Good from the Evil, no editor, no WMF employee, nobody. Because "good" and "evil" are subjective values, they are emanations of each ones' culture and conscience. In a diverse community, with editors worldwide, from a huge variety of backgrounds and opinions, we can only speak about what practically makes the place workable, and sanction behaviours that are factually detrimental. Not personal opinions. -- cyclopia 13:26, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

What relativistic nonsense. If someone can't distinguish Good from Evil they are morally deficient. And judging good from evil is precisely what you are capable of doing, as you have said "The day an editor endorses, on WP, explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic views, for example, I am all for showing them the door". You are very capable of judging things when it suits you, IRWolfie- (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

You may call it "relativistic nonsense", but fact is that different cultures have different values with different notions of what is good and what is evil, and there is no known objective algorithm capable of distinguishing the two, no matter how some (bad) philosophers squirm about it. I distinguish between "good" and "evil" every day, but that's what is good and evil for me, not for some absolute system written in the laws of physics. About my comment, it is not because advocating such views is intrinsically evil: there is no such thing as intrinsic evil. It is because, practically, such open on-wiki advocacy would drive editors away, and this would be objectively damaging for the project. -- cyclopia 13:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

... and you think having editors who are openly Ku Klux Klan and NAMBLA members won't drive people away and doesn't damage wikipedia? The "its not for us to censor people" mantra doesn't work outside of the wikipedia bubble. IRWolfie- (talk) 13:50, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

No, because strangely enough I don't go around doxing other editors and checking what do they believe outside WP (and WP:OUTING requires us not to do so as well). So, if I do not know that someone is a KKK/NAMBLA/SPECTRE member, I can't be driven away by it. And even if I did, as long as they don't become vocal about it, they're not a threat to me or to anyone. They only become so if they begin to advocate explicitly, on site, discriminatory stuff, then making feel other editors explicitly unwelcome. -- cyclopia 14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@Jimmy, I have to disagree that "no matter how vile and reprehensible one behaves outside Misplaced Pages, editing is still welcomed" is too extreme. Nobody should be cut off from humanity - that really would be evil, ask Amnesty International - and we should not play that game in our little microcosm. The only excuse for cutting them off from our "anyone-can-edit" Misplaced Pages is if they become excessively disruptive to other editors - which, as you point out, is highly likely. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 13:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We aren't an experiment in democracy. This is a private website. It's not some encroachment on their first amendment rights or whatever; they have no implied rights to be here. Invoking Amnesty international makes no sense in this context. Not being allowed to edit an encyclopedia is not being "cut off from humanity". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Should then we substitute "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" with "the encyclopedia that people that endorse a well-defined subset of philosophical views can edit"? -- cyclopia 13:49, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

I hate to burst your bubble, but there are already thousands of individuals we don't allow to edit here. If you wanted to change it to "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, except those in hate groups", I don't think that would be as damaging as "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, even KKK members". IRWolfie- (talk) 13:53, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

We don't allow these editors to edit because of how they did behave, not about what did they think. -- cyclopia 14:01, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

@IRWolfie. At least we agree that Misplaced Pages is a microcosm and not the real deal. And it's true that we have no equivalent of Amnesty International, other than our collective consciences. We "should be" what we want to be, and we like to pretend on ethical grounds to "anyone can edit". Barring the disruptive minority is necessary to protect that freedom for the majority, barring evil thinkers is not. Let us either live up to our ethics or abandon the pretence. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 14:28, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Honest question: Can anyone show a diff that shows this individual has "brought an evil world view" into Misplaced Pages? Lets see the evidence. If not, there is nothing to do. Also, homophobia is bigotry in the same category as racism. Given the percentages of people in the general public that believe 'teh gays are evil', if you are going to start prosecuting editors for thought crime, then you had better put your doxing shoes on and get set to ban a not insignificant number of editors. Resolute 14:34, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• "Some views, though, are simply and plainly lunatic and beyond the range of reasonable, and we can and should take a very dim view of people espousing them is a position I agree with wholeheartedly. Tarc (talk) 14:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Yeah - I can get behind that. Doubt the lunatics will join us though... Begoon  14:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure. For example it is completely lunatic and unreasonable to think that there is an objective way, free of cultural bias, to separate world views that are "good" from ones that are "evil", and anyone who thinks there is an Absolute Good or an Absolute Evil clearly is not in her/his right mind...Oh wait. -- cyclopia 15:08, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

As someone who has been accused of having an "evil worldview" based only on who I have voted for or agreeing with the Zimmerman verdict, I have to be very leery of Jimbo's statements and side with Cyclopia. I defended Misplaced Pages in a fairly prominent conservative blog basically because it distinguishes itself from much of academia by keeping Neutral Point of View as a bedrock. If Misplaced Pages is now going to decide what are "reasonable" viewpoints and what are not, you can kiss NPOV goodbye (if not tomorrow at least eventually)Thelmadatter (talk) 15:14, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately, no one really gives a rat's ass what you think, cyclopia. See, this is what the bleeding hearts of the 21st century do; they are aghast at anything that causes offense, and wring their hands over each and everything in the universe that may cause another person to feel bad. "Oh, what, a KKK member? They're just people with a different opinion, let them in!" "Hey, pedophiles? Don't ostracize them, that will just make them feel bad since "nobody should be cut off from humanity". What what people like cyclopia will do is toss out a billion and one absurd examples..."what about X?", "what about Y?", "what about Z?" which serves to dilute the original Truly Bad Things(tm) we were originally discussing. This is the typical defense deployed by the "Friends of Commons" to defend their smut and depravity; someone finds an objectionable image of a teen boy's thighs or a topless Mardi Gras woman, and out comes the "What about XYZ?" trope. Tarc (talk) 15:21, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Fortunately no one really gives a rat's ass what you think too, tarc (ironically enough, someone just endorsed me right above, and others did too - but that's not a popularity contest, is it?). About the "bleeding hearts", um, you got it upside-down. It's more that I am not aghast of anything that causes offense, or at least that we should not be as aghast of such views as to take pitchforks and torchs and go around making political cleansings. And there is no absurd example: examples I did are very much real. You see, if I should decide what is a disgusting opinion, I for sure would ban people who believe in witch-hunt-era concepts like "depravity" in a heartbeat. But differently from you, I know it's just my opinion, and I think you have the right to disagree with me. -- cyclopia 15:30, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Cyclopia is absolutely right about this issue - with one exception. Given the recent statements and activities of Pope Francis, it no longer seems fair to single out the Catholic church as an evil organization. The Russian Orthodox Church, on the other hand, is another matter. Indeed, their efforts have even inspired some people to fight pedophilia... I would suggest that at this point, membership in the Russian Orthodox Church is literally, not rhetorically, as bad as membership in the Ku Klux Klan. I'm not saying, of course, that every member of the church participates in brutal acts - neither does every Klansman. If Misplaced Pages adopts a standard of banning Klansmen but not banning Russian Orthodox members, it is officially promulgating the point of view that gay rights, and attacks on gays, are less important than the equivalent racial rights. There is no mistaking that. Wnt (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)