Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 15:12, 23 June 2016

Jimbo welcomes your comments and updates. He holds the founder's seat on the Wikimedia Foundation's Board of Trustees. The current trustees occupying "community-selected" seats until Wikimania 2017 are Pundit and Raystorm. The Wikimedia Foundation's Director of Support and Safety is Maggie Dennis.

Sometimes this page is semi-protected and you will not be able to leave a message here unless you are a registered editor. In that case, you can leave a message here

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.

Village pumps

policy

tech

proposals

idea lab

WMF

misc

• Refining the administrator elections process
• Blocks for promotional activity outside of mainspace

• view
• edit
• history
• watch
• archive
• talk
• purge

russia uses this site for anti ukranian propaganda

Hello, I would like to ask, did Kremlin buy the ru-wiki or something? The russian wiki is clearly being used for Kremlin propaganda purposes, especially when describing the events that took place in Ukraine in 2014. Talking about the Crimea annexation and Donbass invasion, all Ukranian sovereign territories that are now being occupied by Russia. The russian wiki barely mentions russian military when describing those events. It's like making an article about WW2, without mentioning the German Army or Hitler. I tried to write in the "talk" pages for those articles, but was immediately blocked by moderators like Seryo93 and HOBOPOCC. 94.139.128.230 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I see also that it's coverage of the "Violence at UEFA Euro 2016" is somewhat brief and perhaps just a trifle partisan: . Google-translate renders that section heading as "Scandals and the incident in the championship". I'm not sure this is a big surprise, is it. But en.wiki has nothing to do with ru.wiki, does it? And Jimbo Wales has even less control over ru.wiki than he has over en.wiki, doesn't he? Martinevans123 (talk) 21:26, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

I've certainly seen some likely effects of Russian propaganda on Misplaced Pages, see e.g. International recognition of Abkhazia and South Ossetia - why do we need such a huge article, now only saying that essentially nobody except Russia recognizes these two break-away regions?) Or maybe Obama chmo!

Some of this type of activity is documented at Olgino trolls and Web brigades. It must have been hugely difficult to document this type of undercover activity, but these articles seem to have done so. The difficulty, of course, is to separate the effects of this official or semi-official activity from the results of regular (non-paid) Russians, who may be affected by propaganda activity within Russia. Of course, undercover activity by governments on the web is not limited to Russia. Their have been several recent reports of hacking by the Chinese, internet activity by ISIS, etc. And of course US security services have done some nasty stuff on the internet. So we shouldn't just point a finger at Russia. I do hope the WMF has some plan (not necessarily public) on how to counteract this type of activity. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 23:43, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

If u read wiki-articles on Crimea Annexation and the War in Donbass, almost in every language, the main reason that is described for those events is the russian military intervention. The only exception is russian wiki. Russian wiki describes those events as Ukranian inner affairs. Which is ludicrious. Imaging an article about WW2 in USSR like this " suddenly in 1941 in USSR a lot of people started dying because of a lot of shooting and bombing, a lot of buildings and property were destroyed because a wide spread usage of explosives being used at that period"... without mentioning even once the cause of the destruction, the german army!!! This is what the russians are doing with Crimea Annexation and War in Donbass articles at ru-wiki. And the are protecting those articles very tightly, they erase any comments or remarks on the "talk" page. This is ridiculous. Especially moderators Seryo93 and HOBOPOCC.94.139.128.112 (talk) 04:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Please see Media freedom in Russia and for an example of the extent to which Russia controls Misplaced Pages. EllenCT (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

This is an issue which concerns me but at the present time I don't know enough to really understand fully. What I'd like to see is a careful and accurate translation of the Russian Misplaced Pages entry on the Crimea Annexation into English, as well as a careful and accurate translation of the Ukranian Misplaced Pages entry on the Crimea Annexation into English. It is very common in situations like this for an anonymous ip number to come and radically overstate the depth of the problem - but it is also very common that there is an actual problem. Usually, in my experience, the problem can't really be traced to direct government intervention but rather something much more subtle and difficult to deal with: bias and high emotions.

Let's not imagine that the WMF can't do anything, by the way. Let's imagine that a thorough investigation including translations into English which are reviewed by many neutral community members determines that a particular language is being highly biased on a particular point, and that a small group of admins are misusing the tools to enforce that perspective by banning/blocking/locking inappropriately whenever someone tries to add quality and sourced neutral content which contradicts the POV pushing. Serious problem, but a fairly easy solution: de-adminship of the admins in question coupled with appointments of new admins.

But that's a hypothetical because in my experience, it is not usually as simple as that. More likely is that two languages have different perspectives on an issue that amounts to real consensus within that group of speakers. In that context, removing some admin privileges of a few people isn't going to really help, as the bulk of the community will insist on the bias remaining in the article. In such a case probably the best thing to do is much harder and more expensive... but worth it in my opinion. In such a case I think a fairly large in-person workshop with a professional facilitator working in the native language(s) of the conflict can help people reach NPOV agreement.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:51, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Listen, the best example is that the russian "Crimea Annexation"page is called "Crimea joining with Russian Federation". The events that are presented in the article is that the Crimea seceded from Ukraine, and then joined Russia. When in reality the russian troops with no insignia occupied the peninsula, blocked the ukranian forces, then had an illegal referendum and after positive result they annexed the peninsula. This is the objective truth, and this is how those events should be described: "Russian military occupation", "illegal referendum" and "Annexation". This is the objective truth no matter which language you use. But the russian wiki barely mentions the russian military, and claims that Crimea first seceded from Ukraine, and then joined Russia. Which is not true. It first was occupied by russia, and after illegal referendum was annexed. This event in our world can't be described as "normal" or "legal", when one country invades another without warning and annexes part of its territory. If USA tomorrow invades Mexico, occupies Tijuana,and after promising the local population green cards and american salaries, I'm pretty sure that 99 percent of the residents of Tijuana will vote for joining USA. But the Mexico state will never accept this and under international law the referendum will have no legal power, and Tijuana will be considered as "occupied" or "annexed" by USA, and not legally "seceded" from Mexico and "joined" the USA. See my point? This is the same with the Crimea story. You realy should look into that, and don't let ur great project Misplaced Pages to be used as russian propaganda channel.94.139.128.112 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're probably right, Jimbo Wales. Funnily enough, even at en.wiki, we see regular conflicts between those using British English and those using American English. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

It is of course much more serious than conflicts between users of British and American English. Jimbo does have a reasonable approach, although at first glance, I think it could be stronger. I'll just add or emphasize some specifics that may back up my concerns.

• The conflict - which clearly includes paid manipulation of many social media websites by the Russian government - extends into the English Misplaced Pages, and from there likely into almost all Wikipedias and the rest of the world.
• It's not just about the Crimea Annexation, but on a whole series of current and historical conflicts, e.g. the Holodomor. Both Ukrainian and Russian national identifies are deeply embedded in their interpretations of these conflicts and events.
• Most Ukrainians speak and write Russian and thus could contribute to the Russian Misplaced Pages if allowed. That sentence might be controversial, but Russian language is the 1st language of perhaps 30% of Ukrainians (most of whom are proudly Ukrainians!), maybe another 40% are raised bilingual, and Russian was forced on all Ukrainians in school until about 1990. There's also a very large ethnic-Ukrainian population living in Russia and a pretty influential ethnic Ukrainian population living in Canada.
• Having an in-person meeting between Russian and Ukrainian editors could be difficult, but wouldn't necessarily have to be held in a war zone! One difficulty would be that I don't think the Russian Wikimedia group is allowed to accept foreign (e.g. WMF) money according to Russian law. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:29, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

• Just as an FYI, such a meeting as I described did take place, and further meetings are probably a good idea. I hope to discuss this issue with both Russian and Ukranian Wikipedians at Wikimania later this week. I also have a friend, a non-Wikipedian, who is a native Russian speaking Ukranian, and I'm going to ask her to read a bit and let me know from an "outside Misplaced Pages" perspective how it seems.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:20, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Related page links

The enwiki Donbass-invasion page is huge, with over 720 cites, while the Crimea-annexation page had 390 cites. See pages:

• "War in Donbass" (Ukraine war, 724 cites)
• "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation" (390 cites)

• Russian WP: "ru:Крымский кризис" (860 cites)
• Ukrainian WP: "uk:Кримська криза" (129 cites)

Other pages could be checked, as years ago the NAZI concentration camp pages (Bergen Belsen, Buchenwald, Dachau, Treblinka) had been thin on the Ukrainian WP, but some ruwiki or ukwiki cites are in English, so wonder who would be slanting text. -Wikid77 (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

what does it matter how many cites it has? u can make an article about Holocaust, claiming that the jews deserved to die, bringing hundreds of cites from Hitler and Goebbels quotes. Or that slavery in america was good by using Thomas Jefferson cites. 94.139.128.35 (talk) 03:46, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course you are right that the sheer number of cites doesn't determine the issue. But please be less combative and understand the point that he's making - as a rough first cut to determine whether people are just making things up out of thin air we should look at whether the statements are sourced. Then, as you properly indicate, the next step would be to review the quality of the sourcing. Obviously Wikid77 knows this and it's not really necessary to jump down his throat. What is the quality of the sourcing? You mention Hitler and Goebbels and (strangely) Thomas Jefferson, but I'm interested in the facts of this case, not hypotheticals.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:05, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The ones that are making those articles in ru.wiki on "Crimea Annexation" and "War in Donbass" are obviously a professional deceivers, and they know how to cherry pick cites and out of context quotes that they can twist in their propaganda effort. Those articles are written in such way that the reader cannot conclude that the main reason for those events is the Russian military intervention. In fact in the "Crimean Annexation" page, the actions of russian military on Ukranian soil presented as normal, no usage of words like "intervention", "occupation" etc. I'm beginning to feel that I'm kinda talking to myself here, my guess is that Kremlin donates a lot of money to Wiki, so you let them have it their way. 94.139.128.121 (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

• I will just note that the Russian title, "Crimean crisis" and the Ukrainian title, "Crimean crisis," are both far more NPOV than the titles of the En-WP articles, "War in Donbass" or "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation," both of which have the aroma of Ukrainian nationalism about them. Carrite (talk) 14:54, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

While I think the last point is put a bit too strongly - most people who are not Ukranian nationalists also call it the Annexation of Crimea - I do think that a thought about the accuracy of the titles used everywhere is a reasonable thing to do. Do the Russians deny that Crimea was annexed? I don't think so.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:07, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

I'll note that "War in Donbass" is a very objective title that does not have "the aroma of Ukrainian nationalism" about it. Roughly 10,000 people have been killed or wounded by organized uniformed military forces who are equipped with up-to-date arms. Over 1,000,000 people are refugees. Both Ukrainian and Russian Wikipedias have articles on the subject

• (Ukrainian) War in Eastern Ukraine, and
• (Russian) Armed conflict in Eastern Ukraine

The problem here is not the titles, but as the op suggests, whether the Russian government is paying for content on the Russian Misplaced Pages and denying Ukrainians the opportunity to edit Ru-Misplaced Pages. Our EN-articles, Trolls from Olgino and Web brigades suggest that at least some of this is going on, at least in related areas.. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 16:53, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

A few little details: Over 1,000,000 people are refugees .... in Russia. Roughly 10,000 people have been killed or wounded by both separatist rebels and Ukrainian government forces. -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course both sides are killing people in the war. I never said otherwise. The question is whether we can stop a claimed invasion of government forces on to Misplaced Pages. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Actually, many pages in English WP have a much stronger anti-Ukrainian bias than the same pages in Russian WP. Compare this page and the same page in Russian WP (ru:Азов (спецподразделение Национальной гвардии Украины)). Yes, there is a well sourced controversy about this military unit of Ukrainian National Guard, and it must be noted on the page. However, Russian version does not tell anything about Ukrainian "Nazi", at least in introduction. On the other hand, English version mention "Nazi" three times in a single short phrase in introduction. This is something inserted just yesterday... My very best wishes (talk) 05:32, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, many pages in English WP have a strong anti-Russian bias – diff, diff, diff, diff diff -- Tobby72 (talk) 11:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that the diffs and links are anti-Russian or anti-Ukrainian, but there are almost always this type of back-and-forth editing in any controversial articles. The question we need to address is not whether Russia or Ukraine did some specific action on the ground during the war, but whether Misplaced Pages is being used by paid government operatives in a propaganda campaign. This will be very hard to sort out, but Jimmy's proposed actions at least have a chance of dealing with some of it. There's no use complaining on this page about the tactics of one side or the other on the ground. Jimmy can't do a thing about that. Our job is just to report what the reliable sources say. But if one side or the other is paying people to insert propaganda here, that is another matter that we can attempt to deal with. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 14:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

Somehow the paying is the big sin to you rather than the systematic manipulation of content, isn't it? Carrite (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't think he said that. But surely you can understand that paying an army of people to systematically manipulate content is a systematically different problem than either of genuine debate among sincere Wikipedians or newbies showing up and not understanding that Misplaced Pages should not be a battleground. The difference is that Wikipedians can find a way to resolve differences and newbies can be educated in our ways or blocked as necessary. A paid army will never tire and never rest. Those in favor of allowing paid advocacy at Misplaced Pages hold extremely unpopular views and should drop the stick.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:59, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Jimbo, as a relatively new editor here, I want to second Tobby72's opinion that there is a strong anti-Russian bias in many articles at English Wiki. Considering that mainstream media in most English speaking countries is strongly biased anti-Russian, perhaps it's to be expected that the Russian viewpoint is treated as WP:FRINGE, and editors are striving to get such views represented at all. Meanwhile, intelligence agencies and corporations all over the world are trying to figure out how to influence Misplaced Pages, I don't believe it's just the Russians. JerryRussell (talk) 21:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

My experience is that there's no shortage of very aggressive Putinist editors here. I try to avoid getting deeply involved but it's hard to miss. I don't think they're being paid, though. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it's difficult telling the paid from the unpaid. I'm wondering why you think they are unpaid. What do you think about the articles on Trolls from Olgino and Web brigades? I suppose we could use checkusers to determine if the folks blocking the Ukrainians are sockpuppets/meatpuppets. Do you have any other way to guess whether they work for the government? Smallbones_(smalltalk) 15:12, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Day of protest against law enforcement undisclosed remote searches

Jimbo, should the Foundation participate in EFF's Day of Action on June 21 protesting the Department of Justice's proposed change to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure to allow any government-friendly magistrate in any international law enforcement forum to authorize undisclosed remote searches of unlimited numbers of computers with a single warrant? EllenCT (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think so. But that's only 2 days from now, so it's hard to know what could be organized so quickly.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 15:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Hasn't it been proposed until now then _Muffled 15:56, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Congress will have to decide in December, so there is plenty of time. It's just that adding the protest banner from the first site will work for just two more days. Nothing would stop Wikimedia from launching its own protest. Count Iblis (talk) 21:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

What do you think would be most effective? What needs to be done to display the banner site-wide? EllenCT (talk) 15:19, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The same sort of intrusive banner we use during the funding drive :) .Count Iblis (talk) 17:11, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Efforts by the community early to define what we want the Foundation to do so that they have a clear signal and feel empowered to act is what is most helpful. The Foundation cares deeply about what the community thinks (contrary to conspiracy theories otherwise!) and tends to be a bit timid and cautious if they aren't sure we support something. I think that's wise.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 08:07, 21 June 2016 (UTC)

How about not storing reader-identifying logs and shipping them off to Stanford instead of or in addition to a banner? Universities, even when under NDAs, do not provide the kind of protection that repressed minorities require in many countries. EllenCT (talk) 15:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• I strongly oppose Misplaced Pages getting involved in any political advocacy. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 01:35, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, WP cannot possibly isolate itself from politics. Nyth63 16:05, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

But we can at least try to avoid taking direct political stances. --Jakob (talk) aka Jakec 23:16, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. If someone is attempting to violate basic freedoms that directly affects Misplaced Pages, there should definitely be a strong stand taken against them. Not sure where you live but in the US this looks to me to be a clear violation of Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Nyth63 11:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)